Tuesday, June 24, 2008

I’ve written before about the common white American failure to see that for many non-white people, whiteness itself often makes a person less than trustworthy. White individuals should realize that since so many of their fellow whites still perceive non-whites in terms of stereotypes, white individuals can only begin to gain the trust of many non-white people after they’ve proven themselves unlikely to think and act on the basis of commonly held stereotypes about non-whites.

Something else that needs to be pointed out about these interactions between white and non-white people who don't know each other well is the more general phenomenon at work here--the fact that non-white people often assess the white "Other" in terms of racial membership. They see them, that is, AS white people, and they often consider that fact about them significant.

And yet, if white people ever discover or realize that they're being regarded in the same general way that they usually regard non-white people--in terms that emphasize race (though not necessarily in terms of stereotypes)--they're usually shocked, and even angry.

Again, most whites see most non-whites in group terms, no matter how colorblind they may claim to be. The strange thing is that on the other hand, white people usually think of themselves and other whites as individuals. And on top of that, they also tend to just assume that non-white people see themselves that way too.

Since non-white people have to study white people (as they try to get by or get ahead in a largely white, largely white-controlled world, as well as for their own safety), they often know more than whites themselves do about what being trained into whiteness commonly does to a person. It's also true that one resemblance between many non-whites and whites is that it is fairly common to think of their Other—of white people that is—in terms of stereotypes. And yet, despite all this non-white assessment of white individuals in terms of their race, if it becomes clear to a white person that he or she is being perceived AS a white person, the reaction is often shock or amazement.

While both whites and non-whites do often harbor stereotypes about each other, the non-white knowledge about and understanding of white people is much greater than the opposite. African Americans in particular have a long and detailed body of shared knowledge regarding whiteness. I’ve had trouble finding written or otherwise recorded observations on white people and white ways from other, non-black perspectives, but they must be out there. (Does anyone here know of any? If you're non-white and non-African American, is there recorded or non-recorded common knowledge or stereotypes about white folks among your group?)

In the essay excerpt below, bell hooks explains in more detail some common black observations about white people, as well as the ironic racism embedded within this common form of white surprise, which expresses white people's common amazement that non-white people would ever think that their whiteness makes any difference at all to who they are as “individuals”:

Although there has never been an official body of black people in the United States who have gathered as anthropologists and/or ethnographers to study whiteness, black folks have, from slavery on, shared in conversations with one another “special” knowledge of whiteness gleaned from close scrutiny of white people. Deemed special because it was not a way of knowing that has been recorded fully in written material, its purpose was to help black folks cope and survive in a white supremacist society. . . .

Sharing the fascination with difference that white people have collectively expressed openly (and at times vulgarly) as they have traveled around the world in pursuit of the Other and Otherness, black people, especially those living during the historical period of racial apartheid and legal segregation, have similarly maintained steadfast and ongoing curiosity about the “ghosts,” the “barbarians,” these strange apparitions they were forced to serve. . . .

My thinking about representations of whiteness in the black imagination has been stimulated by classroom discussions about the way in which the absence of recognition is a strategy that facilitates making a group the Other. In those classrooms there have been heated debates among students when white students respond with disbelief, shock, and rage, as they listen to black students talk about whiteness, when they are compelled to hear observations, stereotypes, etc. that are offered as “data” gleaned from close scrutiny and study.

Usually, white students respond with naive amazement that black people critically assess white people from a standpoint where “whiteness” is the privileged signifier. Their amazement that black people watch white people with a critical “ethnographic” gaze, is itself an expression of racism.

Often their rage erupts because they believe that all ways of looking that highlight difference subvert the liberal belief in a universal subjectivity (we are all just people) that they think will make racism disappear. They have a deep emotional investment in the myth of “sameness,” even as their actions reflect the primacy of whiteness as a sign informing who they are and how they think. Many of them are shocked that black people think critically about whiteness because racist thinking perpetuates the fantasy that the Other who is subjugated, who is subhuman, lacks the ability to comprehend, to understand, to see the working of the powerful.

Even though the majority of these students politically consider themselves liberals and anti-racists, they too unwittingly invest in the sense of whiteness as mystery.

122 comments:

The strange thing is that on the other hand, white people usually think of themselves and other whites as individuals. And on top of that, they also tend to just assume that non-white people see themselves that way too.

I definitely see myself as an individual, but I see myself as racialized as well, along with others who are categorized along with me not by ethnicity, but by socially-constructed 'race'. Seeing myself as an individual is 'C2'; seeing myself as a group is 'C1'. Seeing whites as individuals is also my 'C1', and seeing whites as a group is 'C2'.

By the way, I don't mean to imply in my post that non-white people don't see themselves as individuals. I mean to say, or maybe imply, that unlike many white people, they're usually also quite aware of their group membership--it's usually a significant part of their identities. Basically, it's like Du Bois's idea of a "double consciousness," which again, most whites lack.

I don't know far to go with this analogy, but I see the concept of racial whiteness like the concept of a citizenship held by corporations in our country.

Essentially, corporate "citizens" are legally endowed with the privileges held by U.S. citizens, and then some. However, when it comes to the flip side of citizenship, the responsibilities of the citizen to the state, corporate "citizens" can literally and figuratively get away with murder.

In my experience, many white people implicitly and explicitly enjoy the advantages they have conferred upon them by virtue of their racial whiteness. This aspect of their racial identity is sacrosanct, and anyone threatening it must be dispensed with (just look at some of the white reactions to Obama).

On the flip side, the dehumanizing nature of racial categorizing that whites experience when dealing with non-whites is completely unpalatable and painful to them. White people don't seem to understand that the power structure they have created, predicated on whiteness itself, forces non-whites to categorize whites racially.

This categorization is inherently dehumanizing to both whites and non-whites; a fact that I think some people on this site have alluded to.

I feel like many liberal whites want to have their cake and eat it too with respect to their racial concepts. Surly, not all white people are limited by this dilemma, but I think it is common...

webster, 'aware': having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge

If whites didn't know which racial group they belong to they weren't able to realize people they consider as *other*.

white individuals can only begin to gain the full trust of most non-white people after they’ve proven themselves unlikely to think and act on the basis of commonly held stereotypes about non-whites.

what is full trust? How can a single white (white individuals) gain the full trust of most non-white people?

It's also true that one resemblance between many non-whites and whites is that it’s fairly common to think of their Other—of white people that is—in terms of stereotypes.

what stereotypes do non-white people have and how are they important when you write that non-white people have knowledge about whites. What is the hindrance for whites to "gain full trust": Stereotypes non-whites have or knowledge?

I think the idea there jw is not that white people aren't aware they're white but that they are not usually aware that their "whiteness" causes non-whites to view them as part of a generic, collective set of people sharing certain characters (likes, dislikes, expectations, etc.)

What is full trust? Great question. Let me know when you find out...Do people even trust their spouse these days?

Have you seen Office Space? The manager guy and the two programmers are "white people" in the most generic sense of the term. [Dude loves hip hop but locks his door when he sees a black man walking down the street, etc.] The quote here is trying to explain that a white person is typically written off as one of "those 'white people'" until proven otherwise. Just like every black man in a hoodie is viewed as a criminal until proven otherwise. The difference is, the black man knows this about himself, the "white person" doesn't.

I think t-hype hit it.I was going to say that whites are aware that they are white and grouped such, most likely only when feeling attacked for it or feeling like their privilege is threatened....however, most whites do not think about their whiteness as an everyday pressure.

Such as, I have had to think about what I should/should not say, how I should/should not sound, what pop culture references to use/not use, what music I should/should not listen to, etc...Lest my choices reflect or reinforce stereotypes of my blackness.

"Such as, I have had to think about what I should/should not say, how I should/should not sound, what pop culture references to use/not use, what music I should/should not listen to, etc...Lest my choices reflect or reinforce stereotypes of my blackness.

Do white people have to worry like that?"

No, I would say as a white person, my race never makes me worry about reinforcing a stereotype. I do think about this stuff in the context of being a woman, but my whiteness pretty much lets me assume that my likes/dislikes etc will be taken as coming from an individual.

is this for real? are there really craven racists of this ilk amongst us in this post racial age... as someone uniquely qualified to speak for white people let me say...Huh?... where does this garbage come from?... I know, you sat too close to the television as a child and the radiation fried your brain...

This "post-racial" age? fcg#p, are YOU for real? If so, please be so kind as to summarize what you think this post basically had to say, and why your opponents would argue that this "age" is anything but "post-racial."

And what do you mean by "uniquely qualified to speak for white people"? Is there something unique about your whiteness that makes you especially, "uniquely" qualified to do that?

1. for many non-white people, whiteness itself often makes a person less than trustworthy

Is ridiculous. What do you mean? What is it about Whiteness that you have actual information from non-whites who say "Whiteness" makes a person untrustworthy?

It sounds like some "just because s/he is White" nonsense that has no basis. I'd like to see what your basis is.

2. white individuals can only begin to gain the full trust of most non-white people after they’ve proven themselves unlikely to think and act on the basis of commonly held stereotypes about non-whites.

You present this as if non-whites view Whites as guilty until proven innocent. Again, what is your basis for this nonsense? Where do you get this stuff from?

"The history of the American Negro is the history of this strife,—this longing to attain self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into a better and truer self. In this merging he wishes neither of the older selves to be lost. He would not Africanize America, for America has too much to teach the world and Africa. He would not bleach his Negro soul in a flood of white Americanism, for he knows that Negro blood has a message for the world. He simply wishes to make it possible for a man to be both a Negro and an American, without being cursed and spit upon by his fellows, without having the doors of Opportunity closed roughly in his face."

TWO GROUP MEMBERSHIPS: African and American.

___________________________

As far as the unspecified "voices", how does whatever you call yourself referencing (got any quotes?) equate to "many" or "most"??

Yes, where do you get this stuff from? Actual quotes. Linking to a whole thread with no specifics doesn't help. It makes it seem like you have no basis and know it.

Simply, where are the exact statements from said "voices" that lead to you saying what you did? Please quote those statements AND show how those "voices" out of one thread of yours here becomes a basis for you to extrapolate what "many" and "most" non-white think.

None of what you quoted from McCall, e.g., says "whiteness itself often makes a person less than trustworthy." Both McCall and DeWitt remarks were about "strange" or "unfamiliar" White people which makes it hard to say it's their Whiteness that makes them untrustworthy.

And there is absolutely nothing there to give you a reason to make the leap in logic that non-whites are basically putting Whites they come in contact with through a series of tests to gauge whether they subscribe to commonly held negative stereotypes of their group before trusting Whites when trust would have otherwise been warranted.

@Giles:>nah jw, white people see other races as "other" from them as people - not from them as white people.

white people see themselves as people and they see people of color as "other than people."

How they actually see themselves wasn't the question, it was about knowing about a "group membership". Whites clearly understand for example "whites only".They may not be aware of their race in a way non-white people may be aware of, but they know which group they belong to. In America you also have to tell your race, correct? When you apply for a job for example. Whites know which race they belong to.

Yeah, somehow, after only a few decades of very overt and violent White racial 'awareness', we're supposed to believe that Whites don't think of themselves as a racial group in very certain terms. So the continuance of White Flight and White backlash are just anomalies.

Nquest, most whites do and don't think of themselves as "white," depending on the context.

When my parents joined "white flight" by moving from a city to one of its almost completely white suburbs, they didn't do so because they thought of themselves AS white. I've asked my father about this, and he says he instead thought of it as moving to a bigger house in a neighborhood that would be "better" for his family--less crime, better schools, and so on. He says the old neighborhood was racially "mixed," but the presence of non-white people was not something they consciously thought about as a factor that drove them to the suburbs.

He and my mother definitely did join a white movement by making that residential move, but they didn't consciously think or realize that they were doing so. That's an example of the lack of white self-awareness that I'm talking about.

I think, the issue is not that whites don't want to be seen as white, but that they don't want to be seen as racist. It's probably projecting, such whites believe that non-whites expect that they (whites) have to prove that they aren't racist.

I agree with nquest2xl in that it's not "just because s/he is White" and that "non-whites view Whites as guilty until proven innocent" is not exactly accurate. When I read your posts, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that this was not what you meant, but since you didn't deny nquest's paraphrasing and believed that the comments in the other post supported it, then I would have to disagree with you.

Macon, you need to take into account your confirmation bias when trying to speak for non-whites. Using the comments of a post to support or derive your view is methodologically weak and one would have a tendency to interpret them as confirming the contents of one's post. I thought that "believe others consider them trustworthy" was questionable, and I thought this post was questionable, but I interpreted them charitably. Only in the comments did I find that you were probably thinking it wrong all along.

Despite what it looks like to white people, non-white people have a tendency to hold their tongue in front of white people and want white approval. So you have to take this bias into account as well. Despite the white perception that I am vocal about every little thing that might be racist, I am already picking my battles. There is a lot of material in this blog that I don't agree with, but I don't say anything because I don't have time to devote all my time picking apart somebody else's blog. Just because nobody disagrees with you does not mean that it is 'confirmation' that your post is correct. You have to take this bias into account as well.

I don't distrust a white person "just because s/he is white", but because I assume that a person holds the 'default' or 'mainstream' view until proven otherwise or unless there is a reason to believe otherwise. I assume that non-whites have racialized experiences that challenge the 'default' or 'mainstream' view, while racially-segregated white people would have to read books on critical whiteness studies to find this out.

I haven't gotten to Nquest2xl's questions here because, like you, I'm pressed for time--I've been planning to do so when I have more time.

For now, I'm not sure what the "it" is that you believe I'm thinking all wrong--what is "it"?

Also, you wrote:

I don't distrust a white person "just because s/he is white", but because I assume that a person holds the 'default' or 'mainstream' view until proven otherwise or unless there is a reason to believe otherwise.

Is this true for you of both whites and non-whites? If just whites, then it sounds to me like you find whites less trustworthy than non-whites, with their skin color/racial classification as the marker for the probability that they will hold mainstream (i.e., racist) views. . . which makes it sound like your experience supports my claim that a lot of POC do not automatically consider whites trustworthy by virtue of their racial classification. Which in turn, as my posts claim, is something most white people don't know about themselves.

When I wrote "just because s/he is white" (I'm assuming you're quoting or paraphrasing my writing accurately), I mean what you've said here--that "just because one is white, one is likely to hold mainstream [i.e., racist] views." I thought that was understood in the way the post(s) were written, but perhaps it's not as evident as I thought it was.

You also wrote,

I assume that non-whites have racialized experiences that challenge the 'default' or 'mainstream' view, while racially-segregated white people would have to read books on critical whiteness studies to find this out.

So I gather that that you tend to immediately trust non-white people in a way that you don't immediately trust white people . . .which again seems to exemplify my point . . . or am I just exercising my confirmation bias again?

jw, I don't think trust and distrust can be measured, but I do agree on second thought that "full trust" is an odd phrase here (and maybe anywhere). It's true that most people of any race will not "fully" trust any new person of any race, even after knowing them for a long time. I'm not working with the benefit of an editor, and my commenters sometimes serve that function for me (whether or not they mean to do so), so I'm going to delete the word "full" from the post. Is it still confusing after this change?

I hope that eliminating the word "full" eliminates this question about how one could measure trust or distrust? I can see how that word raises this question.

Yes. Because this "trust" or "distrust", do you really experience it? Do you really know many whites who experience this and are then also angry if "seen as white"?In what terms do you expect trust?Somehow the opposite is true. Given the European and American history, non-whites would have every reason to avoid each contact with whites wherever this is possible. But in an over-all view they don't do this. So what kind of trust do you expect?

jw, I'll try to sort through your questions here--I hope I understand what you're asking--do let me know if it seems that I don't.

this "trust" or "distrust", do you really experience it? Do you really know many whites who experience this and are then also angry if "seen as white"?

It seems that you're conflating two issues--"being seen as white" and "trust vs. distrust"--in a way that my post does not.

The post says, by my reading of it, that white people sometimes get amazed and even angry if they are assessed in terms of their racial membership--their whiteness. It's not the case that they get amazed or angry at such moments because they suddenly see that they're being distrusted--they're just surprised and sometimes angry that someone would claim that their whiteness is a significant factor in who or what they are, because white Americans (especially middle-class ones) think their whiteness is quite coincidental to their lives. Yes, I have seen white people react this way when someone else talks about the fact, as it were, of their whiteness.

In what terms do you expect trust?

I don't expect trust from non-white people who don't yet know me--I've learned that my whiteness suggests to most non-whites that I may well be the bearer and enactor of racist stereotypes.

nquest (are you also nquest2xl?), I think I see what you mean with your quotation of part of Du Bois' explanation of double consciousness. Perhaps you'll see what I meant by referring to his concept if you consider another part of his definition:

It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two-ness,—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder."

In saying that many whites lack this, I especially meant the part about a "sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others," which whites tend not to do, if for whites "Others" are non-white. They tend to look at themselves through the eyes of other whites instead, and thus see themselves as individuals, and not as people for whom their racial membership is significant.

Also, you quoted me: "whiteness itself often makes a person less than trustworthy"

And then wrote: "Is ridiculous. What do you mean? What is it about Whiteness that you have actual information from non-whites who say 'Whiteness' makes a person untrustworthy?"

I think I may, suddenly, understand the confusion on this point! Would it have made more sense if I had written that slightly differently, as in, "the fact itself that one is categorized as white often makes a person less trustworthy"? Then would my claims that because one is seen as "white," and therefore likely to enact certain stereotypes, and therefore as, in this sense, untrustworthy, make more sense to you? That might distinguish more clearly that I don't mean that there's something simply, intrinsically untrustworthy about, merely, whiteness itself. That I mean, instead, that it's more that whiteness signals the probability that one will harbor and enact racist stereotypes, and that that is what makes many POC distrust new white folks.

In this sense, then, I don't quite mean that POC regard whites as "guilty until proven innocent." It's more like, "there's a good chance you'll prove yourself guilty of harboring stereotypes, so I'm going to withhold my trust in you to that degree, until you show me otherwise." To me, that's different from assuming another is guilty until proven innocent.

Simply, where are the exact statements from said "voices" that lead to you saying what you did? Please quote those statements AND show how those "voices" out of one thread of yours here becomes a basis for you to extrapolate what "many" and "most" non-white think.

hooks voice as quoted above was a major one for me. McCall was another, and reading the same point in many other non-white authors writings were others--I've forgotten some of those.

But yes, you and Restructure may be right about this--I'll take this critique under consideration in my future summaries of non-white observations of white folks. I don't know how many non-white writers and speakers on a topic constitutes a quorum, or a majority. So perhaps I should qualify claims with something like, "If hooks, Baldwin, McCall, Hurston, Hughes, Lee, and Reed are right about this, then perhaps we can tentatively put forth the proposition that . . . " etc. I'm not sure that would make for especially compelling writing, but perhaps it would be appear less presumptuous?

Restructure, you wrote,

Despite what it looks like to white people, non-white people have a tendency to hold their tongue in front of white people and want white approval.

This is news to me, thank you for letting me know. But before I'm convinced, I'd like to know, what authoritative studies form the basis for your claim that non-white people have a tendency to meekly seek white approval?

"I don't distrust a white person "just because s/he is white", but because I assume that a person holds the 'default' or 'mainstream' view until proven otherwise or unless there is a reason to believe otherwise."

Is this true for you of both whites and non-whites?

This is true for both whites and non-whites, but for non-whites, there exists a 'reason to believe otherwise', which is their racialization.

If just whites, then it sounds to me like you find whites less trustworthy than non-whites, with their skin color/racial classification as the marker for the probability that they will hold mainstream (i.e., racist) views. . .

No. The marker for the probability that they will hold mainstream (i.e. racist) views is their lack of skin color/racial classification from their point of view.

which makes it sound like your experience supports my claim that a lot of POC do not automatically consider whites trustworthy by virtue of their racial classification.

No. It's because white people are not otherized and are not racially classified by the majority (i.e., white people).

If I am interacting with a person who is not my 'race', I am conscious of how I look from a third-person point of view. However, if the person who I am interacting with is visibly non-white (e.g. black), I also think that she is conscious of how she looks like from a third-person point of view. If the person who I am interacting with is white, I assume that he does not see himself from a third-person point of view and only sees me from a third-person of point of view, seeing me as racialized. (By the third-person point of view, I mean the racial one. There is a gender one, but I'm not talking about that, the 'male gaze'.)

I think I may, suddenly, understand the confusion on this point!

Okay...

Would it have made more sense if I had written that slightly differently, as in, "the fact itself that one is categorized as white often makes a person less trustworthy"? Then would my claims that because one is seen as "white," and therefore likely to enact certain stereotypes, and therefore as, in this sense, untrustworthy, make more sense to you?

This does not make any sense to me, and I don't know what you're talking about.

"Despite what it looks like to white people, non-white people have a tendency to hold their tongue in front of white people and want white approval."

This is news to me, thank you for letting me know. But before I'm convinced, I'd like to know, what authoritative studies form the basis for your claim that non-white people have a tendency to meekly seek white approval?

Well, for me, when I thought back to discussions about race I had on the internet with white people, I realized that back then, I softened and modified my stances not because of any valid reason, but because people called or hinted that I was being an 'extremist' or 'radical', and I wanted to be taken seriously by whites. I said some messed up things back then, like I 'agreed' that it was hard to be white because people assume that you are racist. I think the problem was the human tendency towards conformity combined with the fact that I was like the only non-white person there (or at least the only one who talked about race in a white-majority forum). There's also that assumption that all the wise people are white men (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, {insert long list}), and that as an Asian woman, I have no right to speak.

Even when I comment on this blog, it's easy to slip into writing agreeably, because you are a rare white person who has come very far from the vast majority of white people, and to criticize you would be to appear like an extreme radical (crazy). (If white people think you're a self-hating white, what would that make me, if I think your POV is not radical (non-mainstream) enough?) It's like you're one of the only bridges with white people, and I'd be accused of burning the bridge. Anyway, I have to make a conscious effort to check myself if I'm agreeing with you because of logic, or if I'm agreeing with you because I'm worried about how I appear to others (I want to appear sane and 'normal').

I also see this behaviour in other non-whites in general, and including some of the commenters of this blog. However, back then, when I was more compliant, I did appear like a radical that thought everything was racist, to white people. I was characterized as unfriendly and combative, even when I was already restraining myself and making concessions. I also held my tongue if the racism was 'minor', so that I would be taken more seriously when the racism was less 'minor' and more serious.

I wouldn't say that I'm past that now, as it's a really hard habit to break.

This is news to me,

This strikes me as very white.

As for "authoritative studies", I don't know about that. I Googled it and found the term being used rather than a definition of it. Here is Ta-Nehisi Coates criticizing Debra Dickerson:

But--as her very next sentence makes clear--Dickerson does not absolve the black community of responsibility in all this: "Blacks need to accept this and then get over it--and get even…The know-nothingness required to keep blacks tilting at the windmill of white approval is no less odious than whites' determination to remain first among purported equals." For Dickerson, white racism is one giant head trip, and thus can only be as effective as black people's gusto for white approval allows it to be. Black people, she writes, are "complicit in maintaining white supremacy" because they hunger for "white approval or white apology rather than their own autonomy."

I see it being used in various places, but not defined. I'll have to think of a synonym of 'white approval' to see if there are already studies about this, although I probably wouldn't end up looking for it later because I already think it exists. This is not rigorous thinking, of course, but I'm not interested in finding proof of "what non-white people think" because I'm non-white myself, and I'm more interested in trying to think rigorously about how to escape the white gaze.

Thanks for the explanation, Restructure, that certainly helps me a lot in understanding where you're coming from (as they say).

This does not make any sense to me, and I don't know what you're talking about.

That's okay; it was meant for nquest.

Something that seems to be emerging here, for me at least, is the idea that if a person outside of a racial group is going to make a claim about what a lot of people in that group think or feel, or is going to identify and then call on that group's supposed, more or less unified opinion, then one damn well better have a lot of evidence gathered and presented while doing so. Preferably hardcore, researched evidence. Otherwise, the outsider is being presumptuous.

If I've been reading you right, you've called me on that. You also seem comfortable, on the other hand, with speaking for a lot of POC, and/or for a lot of people in your more specific racial group, from your own experience. You're entitled to do so, the thinking seems to go, because you're speaking from experience. So therefore I should, it seems, trust what you're saying.

But then, it seems that when I turn to other POC voices who also speak from their experience, I'm called out by you, and by nquest, for being presumptuous, for treating an entire group monolithically, by basing a claim on the mere basis of what one, two, four, or seven POC said about their own lived experience.

That leaves me a bit confused about just how y'all think I should be receiving and calling on viewpoints expressed by non-white people, in my ongoing effort to discern how non-white people tend to react to apparently egregious white tendencies.

Unless I'm reading the two of you incorrectly (and perhaps you don't even have an agreed-upon viewpoint on this), it seems I'm being blamed for using limited non-white perspectives, but then asked to listen to your experienced (and yet, actually, limited) perspectives on non-white experience.

Unless I'm reading the two of you incorrectly (and perhaps you don't even have an agreed-upon viewpoint on this), it seems I'm being blamed for using limited non-white perspectives, but then asked to listen to your experienced (and yet, actually, limited) perspectives on non-white experience.

You didn't just 'use' limited non-white perspectives; you 'generalized' from limited non-white perspectives.

Of course your should listen to our limited non-white experiences as well, as long as you don't generalize from us.

Okay, but then, if you're speaking as POC, but yet, as individuals whose experiences should not be generalized, then why speak AS POC, instead of as individuals?

Along those same lines, if reported non-white experience is not to be generalized, then what am I to do with this, which you wrote at your blog?

Women know more about men than men know about women. Non-white minorities know more about whites than whites know about non-white minorities. Homosexuals know more about heterosexuals than heterosexuals know about homosexuals. Women, non-white minorities, and homosexuals are on average more knowledgeable and educated about sexism, racism, and homophobia than men, whites, and heterosexuals, respectively.

What is it these oppressed group members are knowledgeable about? Just themselves, or as you seem to be saying there, their oppressors as a group? If about the latter, then isn't that a generalized knowledge?

And if they speak to me from that knowledge, isn't it a generalized knowledge that I should trust, because they're educated, and thus can legitimately repeat, having trusted it as coming from an educated source?

(I hope it's clear that I don't mean for you to answer each of these questions--it's just my way of walking through my thoughts on this.)

You also write that their knowledgeable about their own general group experience:

On average, the oppressed group’s understanding of their oppression is cognitively complex and well-developed . . .

So if this is legeitimate, because lived, general knowledge, I don't know what you think I should do with that generalized knowledge--confine it (against their apparent wishes, and against the credit you seem to give them for generalized knowledge) to just their own, individual experience? Are you saying that despite their having more knowledge about both their groups and about my group(s) than an oppressor-group member such as me has, I should ignore the generalized knowledge they have of their groups, and instead take it as limited experience?

It seems that these people are knowledgeable in a general way, but then if I cite any of their expressed knowledge about their groups in support of my argument about what I've gathered from them and others about an issue, then I've fallen into the traps of looking for confirmation of my preexisting beliefs, and of overgeneralizing from only one voice's experience. These people seem legitimized in their general knowledge, but I'm not supposed to use any particular member's knowledge of this sort in the same general way that's okay for them, because then I'm overgeneralizing on the basis of suddenly limited, and/or anecdotal reportage.

(All of this, by the way, is by way of fine-tuning that problematic part of my blog's project, my citing of expressed non-white knowledge and experience.)

Okay, but then, if you're speaking as POC, but yet, as individuals whose experiences should not be generalized, then why speak AS POC, instead of as individuals?

This is a bit silly. A person can be both a PoC and an individual. Being a PoC is just one aspect of an individual. Obviously, being a PoC is relevant to my experiences, but that doesn't mean you should make a generalization from one PoC to all PoCs.

Let's say I want to find out how people over 30 interact with computers. I can interview you and gather data, but it would be ridiculous to stop after one interview and make general conclusions about how all people over 30 use computers, e.g., "All people over 30 use Blogger and know how to edit Blogger templates." On the other hand, it would be silly for me to think that you being over 30 (I presume) doesn't matter. "Why are you speaking as a person over 30 instead of as an individual?" You being over 30 is relevant because if you're under 30, then I'm no longer gathering data about how people over 30 interact with computers. (However, a better research method would be to interview both under-30 and over-30 people and find the differences. Even when I do this, I should record the 'age' of the interviewees instead of pretending that it doesn't matter.)

What is it these oppressed group members are knowledgeable about? Just themselves, or as you seem to be saying there, their oppressors as a group? If about the latter, then isn't that a generalized knowledge?

This is a difficult question. I think there's a difference between averages and statistics one one hand and generalization on the other. Generalization is saying that "all white people do this", while averages can be about general white tendencies or other things.

And if they speak to me from that knowledge, isn't it a generalized knowledge that I should trust, because they're educated, and thus can legitimately repeat, having trusted it as coming from an educated source?

Hmm, interesting. I think it would be a 'trusted source' in one sense, but you also have to take into account the other aspects of a PoC besides them being a PoC. Asians and blacks have shared non-white experiences, but there are important differences. Women of colour and men of colour have shared experiences, but also differences. There's social class, education, nationality, city of residence, language, etc. It's a 'trusted source' in that it's bad form to assume that we are lying and that we need to prove that such-and-such actually happened to us as individuals, but 'trusted source' does not mean 'mouth of all PoCs'.

Hmm, it seems like you are having trouble thinking of PoCs as both individuals and PoCs. My (intersectional) perspective is not interchangeable with that of other PoCs who are different people.

Are you saying that despite their having more knowledge about both their groups and about my group(s) than an oppressor-group member such as me has, I should ignore the generalized knowledge they have of their groups, and instead take it as limited experience?

I hope what I said above answers this, in which way it is 'limited'. It is limited because PoC are not interchangeable, and I don't know what it's like to be black, for example. But just because it's limited, it doesn't mean that you should throw it out, either, because it's true for me.

It seems that these people are knowledgeable in a general way, but then if I cite any of their expressed knowledge about their groups in support of my argument about what I've gathered from them and others about an issue, then I've fallen into the traps of looking for confirmation of my preexisting beliefs, and of overgeneralizing from only one voice's experience.

Yes, kind of. Why are you looking for confirmation to support 'your argument', instead of listening and gathering data until you feel that an argument can be made? Where do these arguments come from in the first place? If you're blogging about intellectuals' arguments, that seems fine to me, because it's their argument. However, if you are only linking to some comments on your blog to 'support' your argument, then that's bad. (I think intellectuals, on average, have thought it through more carefully than you have, and do not base their arguments only on 'personal experience' but have read studies or generally put more intellectual work into it, since they've been immersed in the subject for years.)

These people seem legitimized in their general knowledge, but I'm not supposed to use any particular member's knowledge of this sort in the same general way that's okay for them, because then I'm overgeneralizing on the basis of suddenly limited, and/or anecdotal reportage.

Hmm, it seems like you are having trouble thinking of PoCs as both individuals and PoCs. My (intersectional) perspective is not interchangeable with that of other PoCs who are different people.

No, I don't think so--I can easily do that, and I do do that. My trouble is with fine-tuning my use of POC sources within my own arguments.

Why are you looking for confirmation to support 'your argument', instead of listening and gathering data until you feel that an argument can be made? Where do these arguments come from in the first place?

I do not start out with an argument of my own, and then seek support for it. My arguments are largely based on those of POC intellectuals who have shared their research on race and whiteness, and on those of white intellectuals who do the same (while often acknowledging that much of what they're saying has already been said by POC), and also, to a lesser degree, on my own experiences and understandings, and on those I've been told about by friends and acquaintances, both white and POC.

Your distinction between, as I read it, experts and ordinary "lay" people is useful.

Looking over the thread above, here's what actually happened: Nquest asked where I was getting my information on POC reactions to white people, and what examples I could give of the non-white distrust of white people. I pointed him with a link to an article AND comments thread. Both Nquest and you then focused on the comments thread, as if that alone is what I referred him to.

But what I actually referred him to were the POC "voices," first in the article, of two professional journalists and one lay POC, each of whom made the claim that I was making in the article, and then I was referring also to the voices in the comments thread who spoke to a similar experience as further examples of something that many (not all) POC feel when encountering new white people.

Read the comments again in 'believe others consider them trustworthy'. Are they making generalizations about other PoCs, or are they talking about their personal experience?

Again, I originally referred nquest to both the article and its comments thread, not just the latter. In the article, I included this quotation:

"As a Black woman I will admit that the typical Black person does not trust any white person (our history nurtures this and it does not help that institutional racism reinforces it)."

That now seems overstated to me (and I hope it is), but it is an example of a single POC generalizing about other POCs, something I was initially calling on all three POC voices quoted in the article to do. My point in the article, as I said there, was that it isn't difficult to find enough examples of POC distrust of white people to discern a trend worth pointing out, by way of pointing out more generally that white folks assume they'll be deemed trustworthy by strangers, never realizing that their whiteness itself is a marker of the probability that they'll enact commonly held stereotypes.

So, better research and writing methods are emerging for me--it's okay to rely on apparent, accredited experts, but not on mere anecdotal reports. It still trouble me, though, that as you said on your blog, ordinary POC are knowledgeable about both their own group and about whites in ways that whites are not. I'd like to credit that knowledge and refer to it, but I'm still not certain how I could credibly do so in the eyes of you and nquest, since they're not "intellectuals."

But then, even intellectuals are problematic sources for you, apparently, since you wrote,

If you're blogging about intellectuals' arguments, that seems fine to me, because it's their argument.

Are you saying that even when intellectuals generalize about race-based thought and behavior, I still should limit my use of their generalizations to them, and not do the same generalizing that they do myself?

How, then, do you recommend writing blog posts about general race-related phenomena while calling on POC testimonials for support of my claims (and again, I will have already read and listened to such testimonials as a basis for the claims I'm then trying to articulate in a blog post)?

Looking over the thread above, here's what actually happened: Nquest asked where I was getting my information on POC reactions to white people, and what examples I could give of the non-white distrust of white people. I pointed him with a link to an article AND comments thread. Both Nquest and you then focused on the comments thread, as if that alone is what I referred him to.

By 'the article', do you mean your own post?

But what I actually referred him to were the POC "voices," first in the article, of two professional journalists and one lay POC, each of whom made the claim that I was making in the article, and then I was referring also to the voices in the comments thread who spoke to a similar experience as further examples of something that many (not all) POC feel when encountering new white people.

Okay, so by 'the article', you mean your sample of three black people?

Again, I originally referred nquest to both the article and its comments thread, not just the latter. In the article, I included this quotation:

"As a Black woman I will admit that the typical Black person does not trust any white person (our history nurtures this and it does not help that institutional racism reinforces it)."

That now seems overstated to me (and I hope it is), but it is an example of a single POC generalizing about other POCs, something I was initially calling on all three POC voices quoted in the article to do.

It looks like overgeneralizing to me as well, but I can't say for sure, because I'm not black, so maybe it's true and it would be news to me.

My point in the article, as I said there, was that it isn't difficult to find enough examples of POC distrust of white people to discern a trend worth pointing out, by way of pointing out more generally that white folks assume they'll be deemed trustworthy by strangers, never realizing that their whiteness itself is a marker of the probability that they'll enact commonly held stereotypes.

I think that there are some general tendencies of distrusting white people, but "their whiteness itself is a marker of the probability that they'll enact commonly held stereotypes" does not make sense to me and seems wrong.

So, better research and writing methods are emerging for me--it's okay to rely on apparent, accredited experts, but not on mere anecdotal reports.

That's not what I am saying. Two of the people you quoted in your 'article' were journalists, but the fact that they are professionals does not mean that they have more authority than 'anonymous black person'. By 'intellectuals', I meant intellectuals on race, or people who for some reason or another think about it beyond their personal experiences. I'm talking about what is being said about race as well as the quality of what is being said. Anonymous black woman's e-mail is not 'bad quality' in a general sense; it seems well thought-out. However, the e-mail is not about black people distrusting white people and explaining the mechanics of it. The e-mail is about white people being too sensitive to talk about race. You took one sentence and ran with it, even if there is a huge chance of misinterpretation, since she did not elaborate.

It still trouble me, though, that as you said on your blog, ordinary POC are knowledgeable about both their own group and about whites in ways that whites are not. I'd like to credit that knowledge and refer to it, but I'm still not certain how I could credibly do so in the eyes of you and nquest, since they're not "intellectuals."

Again, I'm not saying that non-famous or non-professional people have no right to speak. Important things to consider are what is being said (is she talking about her personal experience, or a general trend?) and quality (is it a random comment, or is it an elaborate, structured argument)?

Are you saying that even when intellectuals generalize about race-based thought and behavior, I still should limit my use of their generalizations to them, and not do the same generalizing that they do myself?

Intellectuals disagree with each other. Nobody is the final authoritative voice. If an intellectual makes a generalization and a person who was generalized says, "Hey, that doesn't apply to me," it makes no sense to say, "But you're not an intellectual, so you have no right to speak."

Intellectuals would also be criticized for making overgeneralizations, when the generalization is untrue. However, it seems like they have thought about it more, and are less likely to blunder. The people who invest their lives into it also have been through a lot of criticism already, which is different from you starting to figure it out right now. For example, Tim Wise is just great, and I haven't read anything that he wrote that I disagreed with (except for something that has to do more with me having taken epistemology than him saying something incorrect about race. I have to blog about this, as I just read this article today). The quality of Tim Wise's articles contrast starkly with the quality of yours, which I often find problematic. I don't think this is offensive for me to say, as Tim Wise is phenomenal.

How, then, do you recommend writing blog posts about general race-related phenomena while calling on POC testimonials for support of my claims (and again, I will have already read and listened to such testimonials as a basis for the claims I'm then trying to articulate in a blog post)?

- Make sure that the PoC is the one making the argument about a common tendency, not you.- Make sure that the argument is structured and elaborated on, which decreases the chance that you are misinterpreting and making connections that aren't there. Real studies and statistics make the quality of the argument better, same as for 'regular' arguments.

the problem I see is that you turned around your own topic. It should be about 'stuff white people do' and not 'stuff non-white people do'. For that reason it looks fabricated

I see what you mean, but in the course of describing the problem that white people don't realize how POC tend to receive them, doesn't it help to cite non-white people who explain that their reception of new white people differs from what most white people think it is? Are you saing, jw, that I shouldn't cite POC perspectives on this issue at all, because that "looks fabricated"?

Restructure! said...

By 'the article', do you mean your own post?

Yes, what else could I possibly have meant?

Okay, so by 'the article', you mean your sample of three black people?

No, by "the article" I mean the post that contains that sample.

I think that there are some general tendencies of distrusting white people, but "their whiteness itself is a marker of the probability that they'll enact commonly held stereotypes" does not make sense to me and seems wrong.

"Seems wrong"? Why? You're usually much better at explaining yourself than that.

By 'intellectuals', I meant intellectuals on race, or people who for some reason or another think about it beyond their personal experiences.

So just to be clear, don't those two African American journalists who devote themselves in many of their writings to racial issues qualify in this sense as reliable, quotable sources?

The people who invest their lives into it also have been through a lot of criticism already, which is different from you starting to figure it out right now.

Actually, it may not seem to you to be the case, but I'm not starting to figure out race and whiteness right now. I've been intensively working on these topics and their related problems at several levels, professionally and otherwise and in many settings, for over a dozen years now. For several reasons, though, I prefer to remain anonymous on this blog. I think if my "credentials" were known, I'd probably have an additional aura of authority that you seem to be writing about here. I wonder if Tim Wise, for instance, gets a pass for calling on non-white voices for support that I don't, because he's trusted as an authority in a way that's disallowed by my anonymity.

Anyway, you've really clarified some things for me here, Restructure, so thank you very much for your time and patience!

Macon, your claim was:express amazement when non-white people see them as "white"

You don't explain what you mean with that. I am convinced that non-white people see issues of race much more nuanced than most whites.

Something else that needs to be pointed out about these interactions between white and non-white people who don't know each other well is the more general phenomenon at work here--the fact that non-white people commonly assess the white "Other" in terms of racial membership. They see them, that is, AS white people, and they often consider that fact about them significant.

you still act as if whites didn't see themselves as whites, even if they don't call it that way. "Race solidarity", remember the video?

And yet, if white people ever discover or realize that they're being regarded in the same general way that they usually regard non-white people--in terms that emphasize race--they're usually shocked, and even angry.

quotations or something like this would be great. My experience is more that whites only get "amazed" or angry when they assume that somebody non-white calls them racist and this they assume quite quickly.

I think if my "credentials" were known, I'd probably have an additional aura of authority that you seem to be writing about here. I wonder if Tim Wise, for instance, gets a pass for calling on non-white voices for support that I don't, because he's trusted as an authority in a way that's disallowed by my anonymity.And I think you question non-white people's intelligence here (and also that of all whites seriously about this topic).If you actually believe that titles or "a name" makes you more an expert, you really have still a lot to learn.

jw, there is a long quotation on this, by bell hooks, in the post itself, where I in part quote these words by her:

In those classrooms there have been heated debates among students when white students respond with disbelief, shock, and rage, as they listen to black students talk about whiteness, when they are compelled to hear observations, stereotypes, etc. that are offered as “data” gleaned from close scrutiny and study.

I think that, and the rest of the quotation, as well as what I wrote before it, do explain the post's title, but I'll try to restate its point for you.

Yes, American white people do know that they "are white," but usually in a superficial way (and this is more true of middle-class whites in largely white settings than of urban or rural working-class whites). They tend to consider their whiteness coincidental to who and what they are. So maybe the title should be, "express amazement when non-white people see their whiteness as significant"? To me, that says the same thing, but maybe it's more clear to you?

"They see them, that is, AS white people, and they often consider that fact about them significant."

you still act as if whites didn't see themselves as whites, even if they don't call it that way.

Again, there's a crucial difference between knowing one "is" white, and thinking that it's something significant about oneself, to the point that one is aware of it every day. Many white Americans, again especially middle-class ones in largely white settings, go whole days and weeks without their racial membership even occurring to them. So when non-whites see it instead as something significant about them, they often feel amazed, and even angry, because they (naively) disagree.

I hope this helps?

If you actually believe that titles or "a name" makes you more an expert, you really have still a lot to learn.

I'm always learning, and I hope I never stop.

Right, it's the work I do that makes me somewhat of an expert, not any titles or positions I may hold. I'm talking, though, about an aura of authority, which titles, positions, publications, and so on, can lend a person. Certainly I've fallen prey to that at times while listening to experts, and I think a lot of others do too--I've seen it happen, in otherwise exceptionally intelligent people. It's something to watch out for when listening to famous and/or credentialized experts. And susceptibility to that aura can be mixed with intelligent and even skeptical appraisal, even in intelligent, complicated people like the serious readers of this blog.

Many of them are shocked that black people think critically about whiteness because racist thinking perpetuates the fantasy that the Other who is subjugated, who is subhuman, lacks the ability to comprehend, to understand, to see the working of the powerful.

Even though the majority of these students politically consider themselves liberals and anti-racists, they too unwittingly invest in the sense of whiteness as mystery.

the text of bell hooks continues, you didn't quote this:

In white supremacist society, white people can "safely" imagine that they are invisible to black people since the power they have historically asserted, and even now collectively assert over black people accorded them the right to controle the black gaze. As fantastic as it may seem, racist white people find it easy to imagine that black people cannot see them if within their desire they do not want to be seen by the dark Other. One mark of oppression was that black folks were compelled to assume the mantle of invisibility, to erase all traces of their subjectivity during slavery and the long years of racial apartheid, so that they could be better - less threatening - servants. An effective stategy of white supremacist terror and dehumanization during slavery centered around white control over the black gaze.

ok, it is not about being seen as white but the knowledge about whiteness.

"Seems wrong"? Why? You're usually much better at explaining yourself than that.

I thought I already explained this earlier and that you understood.

Actually, it may not seem to you to be the case, but I'm not starting to figure out race and whiteness right now. I've been intensively working on these topics and their related problems at several levels, professionally and otherwise and in many settings, for over a dozen years now.

... Seriously?

I actually thought you were in your early 20s in the beginning, because your views on race were so naive, like you were born yesterday. After I found out that you were probably older, I figured that your views on race were naive 'because you are white'. If what you say is true, then I've been doing way too much hand-holding and giving you the benefit of the doubt, as you should know better by now and figure it out on your own. I've been way too polite, if you're actually involved in this professionally for over a dozen years.

Learning this about you makes me think, "What's the point with having a dialogue about race with white people?" It appears that a white person can work on this topic for over a dozen years and, amazingly, not get the basics. If you don't get it by now, it seems like I'm investing in something that is unlikely to yield much benefit.

It seems like you don't interact with many people of colour, and are not actually involved in antiracist work that is directed by people of colour.

If you were some white guy in his early twenties starting to gain a conscience, which I had originally thought, or a middle-aged person with a mid-life crisis and an epiphany, which I thought afterwards, then I'd cut you some slack. But you've been working on these topics for over a dozen years?! Seriously, what's the point in even engaging with you anymore? Also, how can you be working on this professionally and think so unrigorously?

For several reasons, though, I prefer to remain anonymous on this blog. I think if my "credentials" were known, I'd probably have an additional aura of authority that you seem to be writing about here.

I think this is a good method to avoid getting unnecessary credit.

I wonder if Tim Wise, for instance, gets a pass for calling on non-white voices for support that I don't, because he's trusted as an authority in a way that's disallowed by my anonymity.

"No, I wouldn't put [the idea of white privilege] through such rigorous testing because I already find it quite obvious that white privilege exists, and that it has all sorts of influences on both white and non-white lives.

I don't have to do all sorts of philosophical and analytical gymnastics to realize that the color of my skin often functions like a wind at my back, while the color of non-skin often functions as the opposite."

If you think the idea of white privilege is somehow at odds with logic, statistics, and reality in general, then you really don't get it. You're not being intellectually honest with yourself and investigating the topic honestly, because you're afraid that the underlying reality would confirm the racist perspective in which non-whites are inferior. You are shutting off your critical thinking skills, believing that calm and rational argumentation is at odds with understanding PoC's POVs. You are reacting emotionally instead of thinking rationally, believing that 'thinking' in an emotionally-engaged way is more in tune with how black people think.

Maybe there is a more fundamental issue here with your underdeveloped critical thinking skills. I would suggest that you get a basic (101) background in epistemology, but seeing how ineffective academic readings are to your understanding, I don't know how much this would help you.

Restructure, you're doing way too much extrapolation there. You wrote,

If you think the idea of white privilege is somehow at odds with logic, statistics, and reality in general, then you really don't get it.

Stop right there. I don't think that. The reason I wrote that I, myself, see no need to put the notion of white privilege to rigorous testing is because I already believe it exists. I wasn't saying others shouldn't put it to such tests, if that's what it takes for others to convince themselves that it exists.

You're not being intellectually honest with yourself and investigating the topic honestly, because you're afraid that the underlying reality would confirm the racist perspective in which non-whites are inferior.

What in the world are you talking about? That's such a wrong presumption about what I think and feel that I have no idea how to respond.

So now I learn that you were spending so much time commenting on this blog because you thought you were holding a neophyte's hand, walking him through the baby-steps of racism 101. I didn't realize that. It really changes my sense of your comments, of your presence here. Your condescension is astounding.

You said: Stop right there. I don't think that. The reason I wrote that I, myself, see no need to put the notion of white privilege to rigorous testing is because I already believe it exists. I wasn't saying others shouldn't put it to such tests, if that's what it takes for others to convince themselves that it exists.

Then can you explain what you said here?

"Do you have to be convinced of white privilege's "inductive strength" before you'll discuss it as a societal problem that something should be done about?"

You said: What in the world are you talking about? That's such a wrong presumption about what I think and feel that I have no idea how to respond.

All right. That's good to hear.

You said: So now I learn that you were spending so much time commenting on this blog because you thought you were holding a neophyte's hand, walking him through the baby-steps of racism 101. I didn't realize that. It really changes my sense of your comments, of your presence here.

I wasn't conscious that I was doing that until now. I actually think that it's not my job to do that, and I'm consciously against that sort of thing, but now I realize that I was still enacting the same behaviour. Racially-neophyte white people believe that everywhere should be a safe space for whites, so I was probably subconsciously influenced by that knowledge.

Now I am rethinking how I interact with people on the internet, why I would be nicer to you if you were someone who has suddenly woken up versus "someone who should know better". I know that I'm suddenly nicer once I learn that a person is under 18. On the other hand, I'm more condescending towards Chinese people and women, when I disagree. (I'm not sure if this is because of internalized racism and sexism, or because I feel like I have full rights to criticize people in my 'group'.) If I found out your name and saw that you were a high-profile person, it would probably cause me to be less condescending towards you directly, due to social pressure. But learning that you have been working on this for more than a dozen years somehow removes a layer of inhibition... I'm trying to figure out exactly why; it has something to do with "you should know better" but without the social authority being made salient. (I'm just working through my thoughts here.)

You said: Your condescension is astounding.

I'm 'normally' condescending to people on the internet that I disagree with, although the level of condescension is affected by various social pressures.

By the way, in Munzenberg's post "A response to Restructure", I found your comments very condescending towards me. If you care, you should figure out why yourself.

"Do you have to be convinced of white privilege's "inductive strength" before you'll discuss it as a societal problem that something should be done about?"

I was asking just what it says. I think I was wondering at that point if he really doubted the very existence of white privilege, or if he did believe in it, but still wanted to test it.

During the thread that you're harkening back to, I became almost dumbfounded that someone would keep calling for such rigorous analytical testing of the concept of white privilege before he (?) would even acknowledge that it exists. It seemed to me that he was being incredibly obstinate, especially since the existence of white privilege seems so obvious to me, and since the concept's acceptance as a reality is so widespread beyond just me. Anyway, I don't think I was condescending toward you in that thread, though I may have been toward him--his pompous obstinancy struck me as obtuse. But I can see now that I may well have been misreading him.

I was asking just what it says. I think I was wondering at that point if he really doubted the very existence of white privilege, or if he did believe in it, but still wanted to test it.

So you're saying that you've been working through "stuff white people do"-related topics for over a dozen years, and you express amazement when white people doubt the existence of white privilege?

During the thread that you're harkening back to, I became almost dumbfounded that someone would keep calling for such rigorous analytical testing of the concept of white privilege before he (?) would even acknowledge that it exists.

I'm dumbfounded that you would be dumbfounded by this.

It seemed to me that he was being incredibly obstinate, especially since the existence of white privilege seems so obvious to me, and since the concept's acceptance as a reality is so widespread beyond just me.

You expect other people to accept an 'appeal to authority' or 'appeal to popularity'? This is one of the reasons why you appear to others as lacking intellectual rigour.

So perhaps I should qualify claims with something like, "If hooks, Baldwin, McCall, Hurston, Hughes, Lee, and Reed are right about this, then perhaps we can tentatively put forth the proposition that..."

Macon, the problem is that you never posted anything where Hooks, McCall or DeWitt are shown to support YOUR notion that they, much less "many non-white people" view "whiteness itself" as what "often makes a person less than trustworthy" and, certainly, nothing that indicated that "white individuals can only begin to gain the full trust of most non-white people after they’ve proven themselves unlikely to think and act on the basis of commonly held stereotypes about non-whites."

What you quoted from Hooks had nothing to do with trust/distrust. You quoted Hooks to show an example of "some common black observations about white people, as well as the ironic racism embedded within this common form of white surprise."

So Restructure is right when he notes how you're intellectually dishonest. As I posted on June 26, 2008 12:39 AM (check my URLs):

Both McCall and DeWitt remarks were about "strange" or "unfamiliar" White people which makes it hard to say it's their Whiteness that makes them untrustworthy.

And, no, rephrasing what you wrote to say Whiteness (whatever weird way you're using the term) signals the probability of a White person holding derogatory stereotypes about POC doesn't help you. I didn't quibble over semantics. I took exception to your lazy logic which is akin to the type of sloppy logic David Duke type of white supremacists use -- e.g. "Blacks have a higher probability of victimizing Whites, crime wise, therefore Whites are justified... [to disregard the fact that most/all crime is intraracial and the fact that the overwhelming majority of Blacks aren't criminals]."

What you've done here is, again, suggested that POC are prejudiced against Whites. It matters not whether you say that prejudiced is marked by saying, "person X has White skin, therefore..." vs. "person X is White; the probability of Whites holding negative stereotypes about POC is high; therefore I will assume every White person holds negative stereotypes until they individually prove otherwise."

What you have said is POC don't view/judge Whites as individuals. I doubt you would ever say that explicitly. That's why you should approach these subjects with more intellectual rigor.

And let me reiterate... NOTHING Hooks, McCall or DeWitt said supports YOUR idea that "many non-white people" view "whiteness itself" as what "often makes a person "less than trustworthy" and none of them said anything to give you are reason to make the LEAP IN LOGIC to believe that "most" POC feel "white individuals can only begin to gain [their] trust", full or otherwise, by Whites "proving" that they are "worthy" of trust as it relates them holding derogatory stereotypical views of POC.

hello nquest, what's the difference between "dishonest" and "intellectually dishonest"?

In either case, "dishonest" suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead. I think you're making a "LEAP IN LOGIC," or a leap of some sort, because I'm not deliberately lying anywhere on this site. Elsewhere you've called me that too--a "liar," and a "desperate" one at that. You do love ad hominem statements, for some reason. Why is that? It makes me wonder about you. Is there something about you that keeps bringing you back to the web site of a white, desperate, intellectually dishonest liar? And why do you think a person you've repeatedly labeled that way would want to continue a discussion with you?

I certainly have misstated things, as I've acknowledged in various places, including this thread, but that's different from dishonesty/lying.

I've already addressed some of your most recent comment's allegations, above it in this thread; as for the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Both McCall and DeWitt remarks were about "strange" or "unfamiliar" White people which makes it hard to say it's their Whiteness that makes them untrustworthy.

You never made an attempt to. You just restated your baseless assertion that McCall, Hooks, DeWitt, etc. supported the notion of yours which none of them did.

Again, Hooks said nothing about trust/distrust. There's no ad-homenim in that.

And we most certainly don't "agree to disagree." You asked me to supply the DuBois quote to support my statement, I asked you to do the same but you have problems reciprocating because you know you can't support your problematic LEAP IN LOGIC.

There is simply no way you can twist what McCall, DeWitt or Hooks said to fit what you said and you know it. That's why there have been NO specific quotes from you stipulating that when McCall, DeWitt and Hooks said X, they gave you a reason, a solid reason that can withstand scrutiny, to claim that:

White individuals should realize that since so many of their fellow whites still perceive non-whites in terms of stereotypes, white individuals can only begin to gain the trust of most non-white people after they’ve proven themselves unlikely to think and act on the basis of commonly held stereotypes about non-whites.

"many non-white people [say] whiteness itself often makes a person less than trustworthy

AND

"most non-white people [don't or won't trust Whites until they have] proven themselves unlikely to think and act on the basis of commonly held stereotypes about non-whites."

If you were honest you would say that you just made that stuff up and you didn't get that from McCall, Hooks or DeWitt. They never made those assertions. YOU did.

And if you actually believed and understood the very things you say the last thing you would be acting "surprise" that stuff you say isn't taken as gospel.

I asked you a simple question, "WHERE DID YOU GET THIS STUFF?", and even after I was quick to directly answer you... you keep trying to stall or come up with any kind of excuse or distraction (e.g. "what's the difference between honest and intellectually dishonest?") to avoid dealing with your unsubstantiated claim.

Restructure was the first to use the term "intellectually dishonest" and I was clear that I was agreeing with the term he used. But, for some reason, you didn't ask him "what's the difference?"

Now that's the definition of "DESPERATE." Obviously you feel like you have to grasp for any excuse not to deal with the fact that YOUR statement is without basis.

I asked you for the basis of your statement and you have yet to post specific quotes where McCall, DeWitt or Hooks said the following or gave you a legitimate reason to say the following:

"many non-white people [say] whiteness itself often makes a person less than trustworthy

AND

"most non-white people [don't or won't trust Whites until they have] proven themselves unlikely to think and act on the basis of commonly held stereotypes about non-whites."

I want to know why Macon all of a sudden wants to question "what's the difference between dishonest and intellectually dishonest" when I use the term you did.

I want to know why Macon wants to hold onto this jacked up idea that POC pre-judge Whites as a group vs. individuals because of this idea HE (MACON) has that POC view Whiteness "itself" as what makes a person "less than trustworthy" and, because of this PROBABILITY idea HE (MACON) came up with, POC decide not to trust White people because they are White and haven't "proven" that they don't hold negative, stereotype-laden views of POC.

I want to know where he gets this stuff from. I want to know when and where people just automatically trust "STRANGE" and "UNFAMILIAR" people and how those factors are trumped by Whiteness as the reason to not extend trust when it would otherwise be granted.

I want to know when and where most POC haven't trusted Whites in schools and in the workplace where White folks are plentiful in North America. For example, I want to know when and where POC don't trust their White co-workers.

I want Macon to explain what kind of trust McCall refused to extend towards his co-workers that McCall should have otherwise extended. Trust McCall would, presumably, extend to non-whites.

Also, it obvious you, yourself, don't even believe what you wrote, Macon.

If you did, then you wouldn't have a problem with the critiques posted here. You would have never said this:

Something that seems to be emerging here, for me at least, is the idea that if a person outside of a racial group is going to make a claim about what a lot of people in that group think or feel, or is going to identify and then call on that group's supposed, more or less unified opinion, then one damn well better have a lot of evidence gathered and presented while doing so. Preferably hardcore, researched evidence. Otherwise, the outsider is being presumptuous.

You never would say something like that, never would have had to just now come to gain this "emerging" understanding if you felt and, more importantly, were made to feel as if you were not trusted because of your Whiteness.

You are White, by the way. So if you believe the stuff you typed then, if anything, you would have said, "Well, I am a White guy so I know I have to prove that my thoughts aren't tainted with the negative stereotypes, etc. that Whites via their Whiteness have a probability of holding with regards to POC."

No, none of this would be a surprise or a learning experience for you and nothing would have to "emerge" if you truly felt like things you say wouldn't be "trusted"; that you wouldn't be trusted let alone challenged to actually support your claims with actual supporting evidence vs. allusions that don't stand up under scrutiny.

Why should Macon answer all of those questions when you didn't answer his, such as the one about why you keep coming back to a blog that you consider intellectually bankrupt?

macon,

I think you're spending way too much time here trying to have a discussion with two people who aren't discussing things with you in good faith. On the basis of their characterizations of you as a person, and their presumptions about you in this thread alone (let alone others), it's obvious to me that, ironically enough, they fundamentally distrust you because you're white (whether they've been able to admit that to themselves or not).

Nquest's labels of abject, desperate dishonesty (and his comparison of your hardworking anti-racist efforts to the arguments of a neo-Nazi--now there's a great way to advance a discussion toward the goal of social justice!) and Restructure's "astounding" condescension would've had me out the door a long, long time ago. Your patience lasts too long.

You've got bigger fish to fry, and you fry them well in your posts (though yes, with misstatements here and there). Carry on, wayward son. There'll be peace when you are done.

AFTER THE FACT that I answered, directly, his question-request for me to support what I had to say about DuBois with a quote from DuBois. That, too, was AFTER I asked Macon questions that he insist on pretending like he "addressed" knowing he didn't.

So, because I was so dutiful to not only answer his question about the DuBois but to answer it even before he answered my questions, in earnest, then that's WHY Macon should have the integrity to answer my questions.

Also, since it was Restructure who first noted how Macon was being "intellectually dishonest" (where did you get "bankrupt" from?) and since Macon continues to respond and discuss things with Restructure and NEVER questioned Restructure about her saying his responses were "intellectually dishonest" then I have more than enough reason to expect Macon to the very basic thing every should be able to expect from him or anyone else and that's support what they want to say without all the bs.

Macon knows McCall, Hooks and DeWitt said nothing to support his LEAP IN LOGIC. Macon doesn't act this way when Whites question him even when they use ad hominem attacks calling him a self-hater.

That would be another reason why Macon should answer my questions without all the bs. Also, Macon choose to speak on what "many" and "most" POC of do and did so in very problematic manner. As someone who is a POC, I have more than enough reason to "keep coming back" when Macon insist on ad libbing and misrepresenting things regarding POC.

Macon never asked or told me not to "come back" (because I don't hesitate to point out when and where he lacks "rigor" and drifts into stereotypes and unexamined bs assumptions).

So why would I have a reason not to come back? Whatever Macon talked about were HIS issues, not mine. Macon should just be man enough to say he can't handle the questions I pose and ask me to leave in a direct manner instead of this passive aggressive bs.

Again, Restructure was the first to talk about Macon's INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY here in this thread. The last thing I expect is for a different reaction from Macon to the term somebody else used first.

I think you're spending way too much time here trying to have a discussion with two people who aren't discussing things with you in good faith.

No, Caspie. Macon put the stamp on that. If Macon intended to discuss things in "good faith" then he would have reciprocated the very thing I did at his request and quoted the exact statements from Hooks, McCall, etc. that supported his statement.

So, the clear fact of the matter is, Macon has not responded in good faith and has continued this pattern of trying to avoid owning up to the errors in his logic people point out. If he genuinely owned up to his "misstatements" then there would be no reason for us to "agree to disagree" and if he ever tried to deal in good faith then he wouldn't avoid SOME of the questions I asked him which just so happened to be the very core questions that point out the gross errors in his "rigor"-less (Restructures base terminology) rendering.

his comparison of your hardworking anti-racist efforts to the arguments of a neo-Nazi--now there's a great way to advance a discussion toward the goal of social justice!

In other words, you can't dispute that Macon's logic is just as sloppy.

And you got things twisted with your lovely embrace of the typical logical fallacy... The goal here is to have Macon talk about what he can substantiate especially when he talks about POC.

That's it. The "goal of achieving social justice" isn't a war where truth will be an accepted casualty. That may be okay with you but as Restructure suggested, at the very least, people have to get the "basics" right. No exceptions or minimizing them as innocuous or harmless "misstatements."

Moreover, I didn't characterize Macon's claim as a misstatement. It is and always was a full-throated error. Again, he had no basis for his statement and he knows it.

That's why he still can't RECIPROCATE the very basic practice that I did and that's quote the specific statement that supports what you say.

"In other words, you can't dispute that Macon's logic is just as sloppy."

I don't know if I could or not. I don't have a dog in that fight.

"Macon doesn't act this way when Whites question him even when they use ad hominem attacks calling him a self-hater."

I spend alot of time here, and I don't see whites doing what you do. They may call him a self-hater, but they don't then expect him to answer a bunch of questions, from someone who obviously has no personal respect for him.

Nquest, it appears that you've cut your legs out from under yourself. Thanks to your characterization of Macon as an abject, desperate liar, you've caused him to leave this building. As would anyone with even a shred of self-respect. Why talk to someone whose convinced that you're a liar? They'll just go on saying that your next words are a lie, since they've set up a representation of oneself that way. As for the points your making, it's clear that he thinks he has already addressed some of them, and he disagrees with the others, as he's already said. There's nothing craven or dishonest about his unwillingness to respond to your pugnacious insistence that he nevertheless continue the conversation. Then you claim to know that he doesn't even believe himself what he wrote (you sure know a lot about what's going on inside Macon's head--how did you get in there, anyway?), so as he probably realizes, if he were to respond to you again, how could you be trusted to think that he even believes what he's writing at that point? Again, you think he's such a liar, and yet you ask him to explain himself--what, with more lies? That, according to you, is what they would be, right?

Oy--now I'm wasting too much time with this! Where are those bigger fish of mine. . .

And as for the importance you place on who first laid the rotten egg, "intellectual dishonesty," who the hell cares who used it first? You used it too, so you should "own up" and claim responsibility for the words that come out of your own mouth. Or rather, keyboard. Wherever you got them from.

They may call him a self-hater, but they don't then expect him to answer a bunch of questions

:)

Now that's entertainment!!!

Of course, Macon would rather be called a self-hater than to ever answer a bunch of questions about how he came up with something he said and how exactly he attributes those things to other people who didn't say what he did.

Oh, the horror!!!

God forbid anyone ever expect Macon to answer questions and, worse, to RECIPROCATE. That's right, Caspie. I asked Macon a question on June 25, 2008 at 8:08 PM. At June 25, 2008 at 8:21 PM he faked an answer, posted a dodge then asked his own question of me which I answered, directly, at 10:19 PM. You know, forthrightly. No hem or hawing. Just a direct answer with a specific quote that supported exactly what I claimed. But, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Macon should never be asked to answer questions by a POC when Macon makes wild, unsupported and unsupportable statements about POC.

Hmmmm... and to think about it... You've tried to ramp up all kinds of emotions over terms like "liar" and tried to tag team with Macon questioning why I "keep coming back" and why would I ever expect Macon to answer my questions or as he said "to discuss" things with me...

By the way, calling someone a self-hater doesn't discredit what one is saying--one's entire rhetorical standing--in the same way that "liar" does, with "intellectually dishonest" and "desperate" as cherries on top. Your analogy is a chimera. (That would be defintion number 3 at dictionary.com) And macon's spent a lot of time in other threads answering your questions, and in this one, answering Restructure's (who is, you should know, not only a womyn, but a POC). Your effort to brand him a racist because he's stopped talking to your obnoxious ass again makes me wonder if a primary source of your distrust of him is that vanilla smell that follows him everywhere.

Caspie, I hope you got better jokes than this one. If not, you're not going to last the rest of the week.

Don't try to pin Macon's f-ckups on me. I've only responded to some of the most outlandish stuff he's said that I took the time to read here. So, if anybody is branding Macon a "racist" or anything else, it's Macon himself.

So, it's rather revealing that you see Macon as a "racist" by way of the statement(s) I've questioned. Rather revealing.

All your posts here trying to ramp up emotions over the other labels I've used or supposedly used didn't have their desired effect so you felt like you had to concoct (another) one.

Too funny....

Really funny when, again, you have nothing to say about the actual topic and can't dispute a single thing I've said with respect to the errors in Macon's chosen remarks which he and I both know he never had a basis for.

So, when you characterize me questioning Macon's ridiculous statements as "my" effort to "brand" him as a racist... Then, of course, I have to laugh at the fact that you prefer to paint Macon, the person who makes these questionable statements on race, as a helpless victim who is "branded" by someone else and not himself.

I certainly didn't make Macon say the bs he did. Neither did McCall, Hooks or DeWitt. Macon made up in his own mind to make the half-cocked, half-baked statements he did.

To the extent that those statements "brand him as a racist", that's all on Macon. Not me.

1) Fear is that of facing the fact that some of what we white people have is unearned

2) Fear of losing what we have -- literally the fear of losing things we own if at some point the economic, political, and social systems in which we live become more just and equitable.

3) Fear of fear involves a world in which non-white people might someday gain the kind of power over whites that whites have long monopolized.

4) The fear of being seen, and seen-through, by non-white people... Virtually every white person I know, including white people fighting for racial justice and including myself, carries some level of racism in our minds and hearts and bodies.. because we are all supposed to be appropriately anti-racist, we carry that lingering racism with a new kind of fear: What if non-white people look at us and can see it? What if they can see through us? What if they can look past our anti-racist vocabulary and sense that we still don't really know how to treat them as equals? What if they know about us what we don't dare know about ourselves? What if they can see what we can't even voice?

That sounds like what you're getting at, Caspie. But it should be noted, once again, I've only responded to the most ridiculous things Macon has said out of his own mouth and, unlike you, never needed creative writing to point out the problems in Macon's (*ahem*) problematic statements.

And I must have been trying to brand Macon as a racist when I commented on how one of his "you're a self-loathing White" detractors tried to say Macon was trying to be a spokesperson for "minorities."

The irony of it all is Macon insisting his statements in this thread are justified when he knows he can't support them (except for by the use of fluff and stuff). Basically, Macon has argued that, he can be a "spokesman" for POC, that he can summarize things POC think based on his curious (read: unsupportable and questionable) reading of some literature by POC who never made the assertion he did because... Well, because he's Macon, I guess.

So maybe I spoke to soon. I should have never differed from the poster Macon devoted a whole thread to and pointed out the posters error in saying Macon said something derogatory about Jews.

What was I thinking? My effort, according to you, is to "brand" Macon as a racist. Why would I ever be so consistent as to insist on accuracy and honesty and, instead, jumped on that opportunity to join in with that poster (instead of clearly saying he was wrong) and accuse Macon of having racist views about Jews.

But that's just it: I insist on accuracy and honesty.

It's telling how both you and Macon feel like he doesn't have to approach these subjects with rigor vs. twisted interpretations he concocts in his own mind then acts funny when he gets called on them.

Whenever you get through... Neither you nor Macon can find where McCall, Hooks or DeWitt said what Macon wanted to attribute to them:

1. for many non-white people, whiteness itself often makes a person less than trustworthy

2. white individuals can only begin to gain the full trust of most non-white people after they’ve proven themselves unlikely to think and act on the basis of commonly held stereotypes about non-whites.

Jeez nquest, who's got time to read all that, let alone respond to it? One of the things that makes you so difficult to respond to, and one reason I haven't before, is that you're so diffuse--some conciseness would really help. It takes too long sometimes just to figure out what you're upset about THIS time with macon(and you're always, it seems, upset with macon). You make scads of charges of inaccuracy, and then jump and shout through several comments (and even comment threads) because one of them wasn't answered to your full satisfaction.

To me, if the bolded part of Jensen's quote is true, then actually it supports Macon's posts' point--if it's true, then the whiteness of white people is a sign to non-white people that inside their supposedly non-racist white facade, they're still racist. Ergo, the whiteness itself of white people is a signal to many non-whites that they shouldn't be trusted until they prove they've worked hard to overcome their racism.

So maybe what you're saying with the jensen quote is that macon doesn't treat you like an equal, because he's just another typical whitey, looking down on non-white people? Across your many exchanges with him here, I've seen the opposite. He's been polite and patient with you. When he answers one of your many charges (never having the chance to respond to any positive points you make about the blog, since from what I remember, saying you agree with anything in macon's posts, let alone appreciate any of them, seems constitutionally impossible for you), you back away without acknowledging that he's answered your point (as in his effort above to explain why he referenced the Du Bois quotation). You tell him he's dishonest, and I remember when he complimented your blog, you bizzarely found that compliment a sign of "desperation." You send him off on intricate tasks, and then when he doesn't do them, you accuse him of avoiding you because he knows you're right but won't admit it.

nquest, you just come across like you have it out for macon. you're clearly motivated by something more than a mere interest in accuracy. You should own up to the more general source of your disdain, whatever it is, and stop being such a cantankerous curmudgeon, because that stinks up the joint, you know?

Or maybe the jensen quote you've bolded exemplifies for you the racism inside macon that you think he isn't admitting to? he's admitted many times that he is racist, and that all whites are, and that he's trying to get over his, which is a big motivation for writing this blog. Fat chance, though, that you'd show even a smidgen of acknowledgment of or appreciation for that effort.

You claim he's left the the building on you because he knows he can't answer your charges, except with mere "fluff"--more presumptuous, dismissive arrogance on your part. How do you know what he "knows"? And why should he talk anymore with someone who dismisses his sincere efforts to answer you as mere "fluff"?

If I were macon, I'd have stopped talking to you a long time ago because you don't treat him like an equal, like a brother-in-arms in the general anti-racist effort. And because you basically come across like a nit-picking jerk. You seem ever suspicious of him. ever disdainful. You did it again in this last comment of yours--you've only responded to the "most ridiculous" things macon has said, huh? How kind of you to leave all those other "ridiculous" ones alone. And you ask that macon conduct HIMself respectfully, and with "intellectual rigor"? Puh-leeeeeeeze.

Oh, and that one, single study you cite that challenges the widespread, research-based understanding that whites don't foreground awareness of their racial membership in their identities, in their sense of self-awareness? You should have a chat sometime with Restructure about "confirmation bias."

Or maybe the jensen quote you've bolded exemplifies for you the racism inside macon that you think he isn't admitting to?

You're the one who cast Macon as a racist. You said that was my effort. So obviously you feel that Macon has shown himself to be a racist or someone who could be branded as such. So, it was your desperate rambling that reminded me of the Jensen quote.

I figure that's the reason for the different way in which both you and Macon responded to me using a term that had already been used ("intellectual dishonesty") without one cry or whimper from either one of you.

you're clearly motivated by something more than a mere interest in accuracy.

You are clearly WRONG and don't have anything to add to this topic. And, no, Jensen's quote doesn't support Macon's point. Macon claimed Hooks, McCall and DeWitt were the basis for his claim. They were not. Beyond that, Macon's ideal suggested pre-judging and, matter of fact, a prejudging that required proof to the contrary. Jensen's idea did not.

Jensen's idea suggested that Whites, even Whites who fight for social justice, fear being seen through. In order for that to happen they have to be "seen" first and then judged accordingly. That's judgment AFTER THE FACT. Not the pre-judging Macon talked about.

Jensen's question:

What if they can look past our anti-racist vocabulary and sense that we still don't really know how to treat them as equals?

By definition, indicates that non-whites judge Whites who use anti-racist rhetoric based not on prejudice or pre-judging them as people who probably hold stereotypes but as people who have shown that they do and people who couldn't hide it by speaking the anti-racist language.

So, no, Jensen and Macon are talking about two different things. But since you want to latch onto Jensen's idea...

Explain what your problem is with the idea of Macon being "branded" as a racist (your term)?

Jensen said:

Virtually every white person I know, including white people fighting for racial justice and including myself, carries some level of racism in our minds and hearts and bodies

If what Jensen says is true then why have you gotten all worked up over this idea of Macon being "branded" as a racist? You act like Macon is exempt or should be exempt not only from harboring racist or stereotypical views but of critique as well.

Macon simply could not and did not support his claim and he claimed, in a dishonest (or confused) fashion that Hooks, McCall and DeWitt supported his idea when they did not. Hooks definitely did not because what he quoted from her never touch the issue of trust/distrust but that didn't stop him from claiming:

hooks voice as quoted above was a major one for me

That was his response on June 27, 2008 at 6:00 PM to me asking him "where are the exact statements from said "voices" that lead to you saying what you did?"

I posted an exact quote from DuBois. Macon, for some reason, couldn't return the favor AND you can't even begin to defend Macon until and unless you can show me what statement(s) in the passage he quoted from Hooks talked about trust/distrust or made the statement he did about many/most POC pre-judging Whites as "less than trustworthy" because of their Whiteness vs. the kind of ignorant bs they say out of their mouths, cyber or otherwise.

Again, Jensen spoke of Whites, particularly anti-racist Whites, being judged on what they do and say, and not based on their Whiteness. It's the difference of being judged on the basis of your character (or, in this case, by the character of your/his argument) as opposed to the your skin color and whatever people may assume because of it.

he's just another typical whitey

More jokes!!! You "branded" Macon as a racist. Not me. I've taken issue with crazy stuff Macon has said. But go ahead and keep revealing the narrow confines of your own prejudices. lmao!

And, really? Who the hell is WHITEY??

he's admitted many times that he is racist, and that all whites are

Okay. So why do you have a problem with Macon being "branded" as a racist. You know, as something he, himself, said he is and all whites are?

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, Caspie!!

What is all this nonsense of yours all about? If what you claim to be my effort/motivation is true then what's the problem? Again, according to you, Macon has said that he is a racist. So why would I need to "brand" him as something he already says ("anti-racist language"??) he is?

IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!

Thou doest protest for nothing and this entertainment gig of yours is underwhelming.

EXHIBIT A:

you don't treat him like an equal, like a brother-in-arms in the general anti-racist effort

Translation: I don't treat him the way Restructure admitted he had because of what he assumed about Macon's age or maturity as far as anti-racism is concerned.

See, I'm a "nit picking jerk" who doesn't coddle Macon and, for that, someone like Restructure can say Macon is being intellectually dishonest without all of Macon's (and your) alarms going off.

See, I'm supposed to overlook Macon's "misstatements"... just because no matter what kind of pattern develops. He's all good... just because. Just because you can't understand the simple English Jensen used. Just because you don't know what the hell you want to argue.

Macon says he's a racist, you say, but earlier you wanted to make a big deal out of this idea, born from your imagination, that my effort is to "brand" him as a racist.

Do you understand the words coming out of your mouth?

Apparently not. But now that you've settled on Macon being a racist, what else do you need me to help you straighten out in your head?

I just set you straight on Jensen and how your desperate attempt to claim Jensen's idea supports Macon's falls flat.

I also set you straight on when and where Macon was blatantly dishonest. But, go ahead, show me where Hooks talked about trust/distrust here:

Although there has never been an official body of black people in the United States who have gathered as anthropologists and/or ethnographers to study whiteness, black folks have, from slavery on, shared in conversations with one another “special” knowledge of whiteness gleaned from close scrutiny of white people. Deemed special because it was not a way of knowing that has been recorded fully in written material, its purpose was to help black folks cope and survive in a white supremacist society. . . .

Sharing the fascination with difference that white people have collectively expressed openly (and at times vulgarly) as they have traveled around the world in pursuit of the Other and Otherness, black people, especially those living during the historical period of racial apartheid and legal segregation, have similarly maintained steadfast and ongoing curiosity about the “ghosts,” the “barbarians,” these strange apparitions they were forced to serve. . . .

My thinking about representations of whiteness in the black imagination has been stimulated by classroom discussions about the way in which the absence of recognition is a strategy that facilitates making a group the Other. In those classrooms there have been heated debates among students when white students respond with disbelief, shock, and rage, as they listen to black students talk about whiteness, when they are compelled to hear observations, stereotypes, etc. that are offered as “data” gleaned from close scrutiny and study.

Usually, white students respond with naive amazement that black people critically assess white people from a standpoint where “whiteness” is the privileged signifier. Their amazement that black people watch white people with a critical “ethnographic” gaze, is itself an expression of racism.

Often their rage erupts because they believe that all ways of looking that highlight difference subvert the liberal belief in a universal subjectivity (we are all just people) that they think will make racism disappear. They have a deep emotional investment in the myth of “sameness,” even as their actions reflect the primacy of whiteness as a sign informing who they are and how they think. Many of them are shocked that black people think critically about whiteness because racist thinking perpetuates the fantasy that the Other who is subjugated, who is subhuman, lacks the ability to comprehend, to understand, to see the working of the powerful.

Even though the majority of these students politically consider themselves liberals and anti-racists, they too unwittingly invest in the sense of whiteness as mystery.

Hmmm.... Not a word their about trust/distrust but Macon claimed, with a straight cyberface, that "hooks voice as quoted above was a major one for me..."

So I can't do anything but laugh because I know you can't say, with any degree of honesty that Macon wasn't being dishonest when he responded to my question with the bogus (and, by definition, "disrespectful") claim that the Hooks quote supported or was support for the statements of his that I questioned.

you don't treat him like an equal, like a brother-in-arms in the general anti-racist effort

To use Restructure's statement, Macon should know better. The last thing I expect and, certainly, the last thing I will accept from someone like Macon is for him to engage in the type of sloppy logic that betrays the "brother-in-arms" title you bestow on him.

QUESTION:

How is that a racist, as you say Macon admits he is, can advance an anti-racist effort?

That doesn't make much sense. What makes even less sense is the underlying notion of yours that any perceived racism or otherwise problematic racial views from someone like Macon who isn't just another "typical Whitey" (your term) should be ignored -- no one should "nit pick" at it/him -- because he's not just another "typical Whitey" (whatever a "typical Whitey" is).

Macon, you come across as somebody who isn't very experienced (or thoughtful) about the topic you want to write.Already your claim of "civil discussions in a calm and rational way" you think would be typical for whites, indicates, that you didn't have many talks with whites when it comes to race. I can't share this ovservation with you, whites quite typically become quite hysterical, when a discussion doesn't go the way they want it to be. They try to dominate instead of truly listening, they can't accept criticism, most of all when this criticism comes from somebody non-white.

And again the question, when you want to explore whiteness, also your own, why do you think that you as a white are in the position to write how non-whites my feel, think etc.? How is this even important?As I told you already some posts earlier, don't expect all of your readers to know less then you. You are not in the position to educate anybody and most of all not non-whites. When you make claims like in this post based on a writing which doesn't back you claim, yes indeed, where do you get your assumptions?

Caspie>And macon's spent a lot of time in other threads answering your questions, and in this one, answering Restructure's

what is wrong with being challenged? Oh wait, white entitlement?And the "distrust" you mention which you think comes just because Macon is white - this is a clever way to protect somebody white to take responsibility for his own writing. Yes, can't be because of WHAT he is writing, it's only his skin-color. *roll my eyes*

caspie, please stop. I appreciate your support, just as I appreciate the careful criticism of others, but in a way, I think you're trying to speak too much FOR me.

jw:

Already your claim of "civil discussions in a calm and rational way" you think would be typical for whites, indicates, that you didn't have many talks with whites when it comes to race.

Oh but I have, middle-class whites especially, from the ones among that group willing to even discuss racism. "Civilized" and "rational" is the way they almost always want to talk about race--passion and hysterics are an exception to a general rule. I could quote other writers who've seen this among whites, but uh, com to think of it, they're not white, so I won't quote them to you, since you don't think I should do that. Yes, I've seen individual whites get hysterical, but that's been to the frowning consternation of the other whites in the room, who usually do all they can to calm that person down. I'm talking about a general white consensus for discussion of race; certainly individuals act as exceptions to the rule, as with any general rule or tendency.

And again the question, when you want to explore whiteness, also your own, why do you think that you as a white are in the position to write how non-whites my feel, think etc.? How is this even important?

I think I'm only in the position to write that way (and to do so, I now see, more speculatively) when I've gathered that enough non-whites feel, think, etc. in a certain way that whites should be told about it--for their own education about their own white ways. Many non-whites know more about whiteness than whites themselves do--including me. Why not draw on that knowledge in my examination of whiteness? Also, much of what whites do to non-whites should be stopped--non-white testimonials of what whites do to them provide further support of that point.

As I told you already some posts earlier, don't expect all of your readers to know less then you. You are not in the position to educate anybody and most of all not non-whites.

I'm not sure about the difference here between "educate" and "share information." Have to think about that. And I quite obviously don't expect all of my readers to know less than me--as I've said many times know, I do accept criticism when errors of mine have been pointed out in a way I find convincing, and I have also edited posts as a result. I also think, though, that it's okay for me to disagree with some of my readers, be they white or non-white.

So don't think I don't listen to my readers. In fact, in response to many good points made amidst the steady barrage of criticism lately, I'm thinking of shutting down, for awhile at least, in order to reassess what I'm doing on this blog.

Because you're not drawing from the POC you used as a way to spout your own views that don't mesh with what you quoted from them.

Again, McCall and DeWitt referred to "strange" and "unfamiliar" Whites. Even children know not to trust strangers and people would certainly be expected not to trust strangers when they become adults.

And, yet again, Hooks said NOTHING... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about trust/distrust but that didn't stop you from defensively claiming she did (support your wacked notion).

Anytime, Macon...

EXACT QUOTES from McCall, DeWitt or Hooks that say:

1. for many non-white people, whiteness itself often makes a person less than trustworthy

2. white individuals can only begin to gain the full trust of most non-white people after they’ve proven themselves unlikely to think and act on the basis of commonly held stereotypes about non-whites.

Contrary to your claim... you didn't "draw" that stuff from them.

And since you can suggest that your father's statement about why he contributed to White Flight somehow disproves the "COMMON TENDENCY", known racialized trend (which just so happen to be well documented with plenty of innocuous rationalization included), then I'll use the same privilege to debunk your notion because I personally don't pre-judge Whites. The ones that harbor the most problematic and idiotic stereotypical views have a way of expressing them quick enough without it.

Further, I know I'm not distrusting my White co-workers when it comes to the joint tasks we perform. We all have to rely on each other.

You not only mischaracterized what McCall said but you are obviously not very knowledgeable about the cultural differences at play in the whole "trust" scenario McCall wrote about.

First, McCall noted not that it was his co-worker's "Whiteness" that caused him not to "open up" to them but it was the fact/perception that:

It was obvious that many of my co-workers had had little exposure to blacks. They seemed overpolite and unsure how to relate to me.

That's enough by itself for you to dispense with the nonsense you tried to attribute to POC when you and I both know you got 1 and 2 from you and you alone.

McCall went on to say:

Likewise, I was guarded with them, remembering lessons learned from others' pain: Keep them at arms' length and out of your personal business.

And, yet again, Hooks said NOTHING... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about trust/distrust but that didn't stop you from defensively claiming she did (support your wacked notion).

Where did I do that--in the post, or in a comment? In the post I wrote about how she discusses "the fact that non-white people commonly assess the white 'Other' in terms of racial membership." I don't see a claim in the post that she says anything about trust, and if I said in a comment that she says so, then I misspoke. Or miswrote, rather.

The ones that harbor the most problematic and idiotic stereotypical views have a way of expressing them quick enough without it.

What about the ones that harbor more subtle ones, like false allegiance to "colorblindness," or the one that springs the sudden compliments on you about how "articulate" you are, or the ones that harbor other more subtle forms of racism? Or do you work with such a uniformly, incredibly progressive, racially enlightened group of white folks that you can trust them all to never enact common forms of white racism?

McCall went on to say:

Likewise, I was guarded with them, remembering lessons learned from others' pain: Keep them at arms' length and out of your personal business.

Do you understand what that is about?

I read McCall's "them" in that sentence to be white folks, not his particular co-workers. Therefore, I read it to mean that at that point in his life, he didn't trust white people, and so keeps them at arm's length. He does write, if I remember the book right, that he went on to become more trusting than he was then of white people in general.

So for me, that one sentence alone exemplifies how,

1. for many non-white people, whiteness itself often makes a person less than trustworthy

>for many non-white people, whiteness itself often makes a person less than trustworthy

you project from white action to assumed non-white actions. It is white people who reduce other people to skin-color/race alone. Non-whites don't build fenced communities or leave communities in droves when "too many" white people move in.Non-white people move to white areas despite white history, they walk through white areas and so on.

And again, whites have knowledge about their race, they identify with their race, with their white history. They do not necessarily think about it what this means, but they know that they are white. You want to defend *colorblindness* and the "innocence" of being "ignorant", which isn't the reality. Whites use coded language.

Oh but I have, middle-class whites especially, from the ones among that group willing to even discuss racism.

and what is with those who are not 'willing'?

I think I'm only in the position to write that way (and to do so, I now see, more speculatively) when I've gathered that enough non-whites feel, think, etc. in a certain way that whites should be told about it--for their own education about their own white ways.

quoting non-white voices in the correct context is something different then explaining it with your problematic interpretation. Your blog wants to be about anti-racism/stuff white people do, what then is your intention to tell your white readers: Folks, non-white people won't trust you, just because you are white.

Macon, first let me comment on something you said in the other thread: I don't do "truces", I do truths. Besides, to enter a "truce" with you would suggest that I've been in or perceived that I've been in a "BATTLE" (your LABEL) with you.

Back to the topic here... In response to this statement of mine, "Hooks said NOTHING... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about trust/distrust", you responded like so:

Where did I do that--in the post, or in a comment?

MY RESPONSE: Macon, I already noted how your claim in the comment section differed from what you posted in the original post. The only difference is, I made the point to show how what you wanted to claim in the comment section regarding Hooks wasn’t in line with the reason why you referenced Hooks in your original post.

Responding to my question about “where are the exact statements from said "voices" that lead to you saying what you did?” and gave you a reason/basis to “extrapolate what "many" and "most" non-whites think” you said:

hooks voice as quoted above was a major one for me. McCall was another...

That was you saying (in your June 27, 2008, 6:00 PM post) that Hooks supported your comments about trust/distrust when, as I’ve noted, she said NOTHING about it. As for McCall, he listed a number of things that had little if anything to do with the Whiteness of his co-workers:1) my co-workers had had little exposure to blacks2) They seemed overpolite and unsure how to relate to me.3) I was guarded with them, remembering lessons learned from others' pain

We can add a 4th when we included the cultural difference I alluded to that you want to feign ignorance or "blindness" to and a 5th from your own characterization of McCall's story which I highlighted with nothing but your selective blindness as a response:

5) “McCall, writes of his own lingering distrust of ***unfamiliar*** white people”

In my my June 29, 2008, 3:11 PM post I asked you another one of those simple questions you apparently interpret as "intricate (labor intensive and too time consuming) tasks":

How many White people do you expect to trust you who "don't yet know you"?

After I took the same privilege you tried to use here and talk about how my personal, individual anecdote disproves the rule (like you did with respect to your father and the White Flight SOCIAL phenomenon), you went off the deep end simply because my statement didn't support your pre-formed notion you've used to justify this curious approach to Whiteness of yours.

What about [[[yada... yada...]]] Or do you work with such a uniformly, incredibly progressive, racially enlightened group of white folks that you can trust them all to never enact common forms of white racism?

At no time have you even defined or otherwise specified what kind of trust you were talking about even after Ms. More Constructive, JW, asked you to be more specific but NOW... now you want to frame this "trust" thing as POC trusting/distrusting Whites to "NEVER" enact common forms of white racism.

What that has to do with me noting how I can and do trust White co-workers of mine in the workplace, particularly when it comes to the mutually beneficial, quid pro quo, nature of what I do... I don't know and you don't either. But this is typical of your response to questions I've raised that conflict with your fundamental beliefs.

Whether my co-workers "enact common forms of white racism" most of the waking hours of the day is IRRELEVANT to the time, place, settings and, yes, tasks in which I can trust them. People relate to each other on a number of different levels and, as such, there are different areas when and where (lol) even White people can be trusted.

The subtle ones, like all these Whites whom you argue don't consider themselves as a group/collective, can be characterized as tolerant to a point. White Flight is like that.

There are plenty of social situations were those buttons aren't pushed, where Whites aren't pushed to the point of being intolerant, and, of course, well-meaning Whites who can be trusted when and where their views align with POC.

It's when there are fundamental points of agreement which may never occur in some workplaces or other social/integrated setting where whatever racial stereotypes Whites may harbor or whatever racism they may "enact" may never be triggered or come to the surface.

Then too, when it's widget making time, unless the White individuals in shared workplaces, etc. are completely repulsed by POC... such talk about Whites "enacting common forms of white racism" don't apply.

In this assembly line/workplace analogy, when White person X depends on Black person Y's widget and vice versa, then there should be no surprise that trust can and do exist in situations like that whether the White person is "incredibly progressive" or not.

Your readers who accuse you of being a self-hater certainly would find that statement of yours interesting; maybe even, telling. It's like you're insisting that most/all Whites are vile racists sitting around waiting to "enact common forms of white racism" whatever those are and however defining of the persons character those things are supposed to be in order to classify them as not "trustworthy."

Now, McCall specified one thing he wouldn't trust his co-workers with: his personal business. That's a cultural thing, Macon. It's a cultural difference and when Whites are as McCall described his co-workers (unsure of how to relate to him because they had little exposure to Blacks) then there are reasons that have nothing to do with their Whiteness or the way POC negatively stereotypes Whites, by the way you've framed things here.

And that's the ultimate issue here: you've suggested that POC stereotypes White just because they are White and then tried to pawn that stuff off on POC who didn't say:

1. many non-white people, whiteness itself often makes a person less than trustworthy

2. white individuals can only begin to gain the full trust of most non-white people after they’ve proven themselves unlikely to think and act on the basis of commonly held stereotypes about non-whites.

The Whiteness of Tim Wise or Robert Jensen doesn't have POC looking at them as suspect. As the points I've listed from what McCall said, there were/are a number of reasons why POC don't even have to PRE-JUDGE (read: hold racial prejudice) Whites who, like the subtle ones you mentioned, SAY THINGS OR COMMIT ACTIONS THAT RENDER THEM LESS THAN TRUSTWORTHY.

So my response to you asking "What about [them]?" is: WHAT ABOUT THEM? What you described was something necessary or even based on POC "pre-judging" Whites but STUFF, how do you say, WHITE PEOPLE DO that renders them untrustworthy or suspect AFTER THE FACT. After the fact that:

1) A white person’s allegiance to colorblindness is determined to be false;2) A white person suddenly and curiously compliments a POC for being “articulate”;3) A white person does something, makes a statement or commits an ACTION that is judged, after the statement or ACTION is made, to be a “subtle form” of racism.

I never said anything about POC being colorblind and don't know how the notion applies to anything I said. And whether POC are colorblind when encountering "new" Whites (the terms the "voices" used were STRANGE and UNFAMILIAR) or not (WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE NOT?) has little to do with your idea which suggests that POC are just as prejudice as Whites, PRE-JUDGING Whites simply because they are White and, therefore, subject to be racist. That's all your tortured logic.

It's clear I reject every aspect of your tortured logic.

So you obviously don't "see what I'm saying" when you ask questions like that which can only be asked when you're trying to maintain your problematic notion which says "many" and "most" POC are prejudices against Whites, assuming Whites are racist or probably racist, without any knowledge of whether they are or not because of this "probability" notion of yours that YOU came up with without the support of any POC you claimed you drew that idea from.

I'll bypass asking you for evidence that POC stereotypes "new" Whites when they encounter because I doubt you have such evidence that there is this moral equivalence you seem to want to claim to exist like POC who work in or manage stores see "new" Whites and just suspect them of being shoplifters... No. I'll bypass that and highlight this problematic and, yes, UNSUPPORTED statement of yours:

Again, most whites see most non-whites in group terms, no matter how colorblind they may claim to be. The strange thing is that on the other hand, white people usually think of themselves and other whites as individuals. And on top of that, they also tend to just assume that non-white people see themselves that way too.

Your claim that POC don't see Whites as individuals is f-cked. Your logic is tortured because you have this curious need to draw a moral equivalence that just isn't there, real curious considering your examination of Whiteness and other things you say about racism.

Sure, POC (which is not to be confused with African-Americans; note how you couldn't find "sources" beside African-American ones but still went on to claim this is how POC think)... sure POC are and can be prejudice. But for you to try to make claims which suggest that POC view Whites the same way Whites view them then you know history and reality stick forks in your abstract abstractions.

Simply, where is the evidence that POC don't view Whites as individuals in any way remarkable for you to say what you did:

"white people usually think of themselves and other whites as individuals... and... they... just assume that non-white people see themselves that way too."

Hmmm... How is it that "white people" just up and make that assumption if non-whites were actually treating Whites as if they aren't individuals vs. mere representatives of their racial group in any significant/remarkable way?

Simply, it just doesn't happen the way you try to make it sound. Whites don't assume African-Americans see them as individuals when the history of slavery and racism is the topic. That's abundantly clear in the responses Whites have to Reparations and affirmative action.

But you can't even be consistent. It's like you're freestylin' in every thread. So it's rather ironic that you would hold the quoted position you do in this thread and link me to the other thread where you said:

Because black people have had to live and work with white people, and because they’ve had to be careful while doing so, they’ve gotten used to sizing up white people on the basis of reality, rather than stereotypes.

Here, you're arguing the opposite: that Black people/POC pre-judge Whites on the basis of STEREOTYPE-laden assumptions about them simply because they are White, perhaps even "rightfully" so considering your "probability" postulate.

So which one is it, Macon?

Pardon me while I question why you're trying to defend your disputed nonsense here in this thread when you've already contradicted it with your own freestyle renderings in the other thread... (Full Quote):

Because black people have had to live and work with white people, and because they’ve had to be careful while doing so, they’ve gotten used to sizing up white people on the basis of reality, rather than stereotypes. They’ve learned and taught each other how most white people think and act. On the other hand, white people usually have little or no extensive contact with actual black people, so what they learn about them from movies, TV, books, education, and their families and friends tends to be stereotypes.

So again, when they meet each other in person, one usually uses a more accurate measuring stick than the other does. And because white people aren’t usually aware of themselves as white, and thus as typically white, they can’t be trusted not to look for confirmation of their false stereotypes.

The irony of the confirmation bias...

Here you've wanted to confirm a false stereotype of yours. I don't know whether that has anything to do with your degree of contact with actual Black people or what. All I know is that you didn't and still don't have the support for what you claimed you drew from McCall, HOOKS and DeWitt.

I would be interested in what you call this claim of yours regarding Hooks:

NQUEST: “where are the exact statements from said "voices" that lead to you saying what you did?”

MACON D: "hooks voice as quoted above was a major one for me. McCall was another..."

I mean, everything you wrote appears to be in tact and you of all people should be cognizant of what you said. And, no. There is no way you "misspoke." My question to you was clear and your answer to it was clear.

Nquest, that's a lot to get through, and I don't have time for that now. I'll get back to it when I do have time, if I upon reflection, I consider doing so worth the time that would take. I doubt I ever will, though, since you "reject every aspect of my tortured logic." Given such an absolute and thorough rejection, I simply don't have time to pick up each and every aspect of that logic and examine it with you. You've made your case, and if I revisit the issues raised in the posts that you've analyzed, I'll certainly revisit your comments as well. Thank you for your carefully corrective concern with the accuracy of a white anti-racist's reference to statements made by non-white people.

What? You expect mealy mouth statements like "I agree with some of what you said" followed by everything I don't agree just to make you feel good? Just so it will be worth your time to try to respond by doing nothing but trying to maintain your problematic notion in this "dialog" where you've made dishonest statements about where you got the notions from?

Again, I asked you where you got your idea from and for exact statements (such an "intricate task") from the POC you claimed you got you idea from and, as noted over and over now, you claimed Hooks was a "major one."

Your posts are great, but I have to say that it is quite a lot to get through and think about. I can understand that Macon may need time to process what you said - and there are only so many hours in the day that can be devoted to the internet...

It would be different if that was the only thing Macon said. But that's not the only thing he said and not even the reason why he brought up the notion of how much there is to "get through."

Macon had no problems giving a response to a lengthy, typo-filled post of mine when he asked me the "colorblind" question. And I've made no same-day deadline demands on Macon to respond right here, right now (or before the clock strikes midnight) to make sure he all this is handled in a day's time.

My responses in this thread began about a week ago... with several days where I didn't post.

Also, though I've written a lot, I don't think I've said anything new. I think, at best, I've only been more explicit voicing the same objections/observations I started off making.

So, for the most part, I really don't understand this idea that there's a lot to get through and think about. That thinking process, IMO, should have started, in earnest, on June 25th when I made a relatively brief but explanatory post at 8:08 pm describing what I found to be problematic especially in the way Macon described the way POC view Whites.

Maybe at some point you can share with me what it is you have to think about in terms of my recent posts in the last day(s).

I have some free time this evening, and I want to use it to continue trying to comprehend our differences on this issue, in order to improve my understanding of the issue, and if warranted, to revise the two posts in question. I do not believe, as you seem to if I'm reading you right, that they're fundamentally, fatally flawed (and that therefore, it seems, they should be removed from this blog). Rest assured, I'm not writing here with the intention of simply defending what I've written, and I haven't been avoiding communication with you because "I know I'm wrong and that you're right," as I think you've claimed several times now (that's not an exact quote. And in that regard, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop stating your assumptions about what I'm thinking--that's unhelpful, and useless. Stick to the words on the blog, please.)

I've been combing through your comments, trying to figure out just where you see bad logic and/or unjustified claims in my two posts ("express amazement" and "believe trustworthy etc."). So far what I'm gathering is that you now want to know where I got the original idea that a lot of non-white folks don't immediately trust new white folks.

If that's still your request, here's my answer. When I wrote in the comments that my original sources were "hooks and others," I didn't mean the quote by hooks that's in this post. I've read many books and essays by her, and I remember her saying about her childhood that she'd been told, or even trained, not to trust whites. I also remember that in the essay the quote above is from ("Representations of Whiteness"), she writes about a general terror of sorts that is still sometimes her response to certain largely white situations--it's the whiteness of those settings that brings that feeling on (I don't have the essay with me now, but I believe that she writes that while feeling terrorized is usually an unreasonable response, it's still there, implanted from a communal experience and memory of real white terrorism; she also wishes whites were more willing to acknowledge and talk about that common black response to whiteness--at least, that's how I remember the essay).

So, where did the ORIGINAL idea come from, for me, that non-whites often withhold their trust from whites more that whites realize? From various writings by hooks, from conversations with non-white people I've known, and from other non-white writers whose names I can't remember now. In other words, it became a general understanding for me, and something I thought white folks should know--about the difference between how they think they're being perceived by POC they don't know, and how POC often actually perceive them instead.

So the claim I meant to make is NOT that POC distrust white people just because of their whiteness, nor that they do so because they're stereotyping whites. Instead, it's that many POC know that whites commonly, and often unconsciously, hold and enact stereotypes. Actually, I think that's pretty much what Tim Wise is getting at in the part of the quote that I posted by him today where he says, about his presence as a white person working amidst non-whites,

I think it’s perfectly valid for folks of color to wonder just what the hell am I up to, and what the hell are other white folks up to, doing this work.

I get that. I wouldn’t trust me either if I was in that situation.

I'm not citing this example as yet more proof of my point, but rather as just that, an example, an illustrative one (hmm--okay, so maybe I do mean it as proof of my point). It's another case where a new white person's racial status is a signal to non-white people, based on their previous and often disappointing experiences with other white people (that's why I say this withholding of trust is based on knowledge, not on unfounded stereotypes). Wise is stating a recognition here about his white self and how it's commonly received by some other people--distrustfully--that many non-whites in that situation don't have.

Anyway, I think I'm doing the same thing you said, late in all this, that you were doing--repeating myself.

So, to summarize my answer to what you most recently said is your basic question, I initially got the general idea from various and sundry sources, as described above, then wrote the post on trust, including as well what I saw as specific, illustrative examples of a common non-white withholding of trust from new white people, white people who have yet to prove themselves trustworthy in racial terms. So, you asked for "exact statements from the POC you claimed you got you idea from," but I don't have any.

I do, however, now have many statements from POC that agree with the essay. That basically say, that is, "yes, I do often mistrust new white people." I'm going to quote some of those here, and I do not believe that doing constitutes my enactment of that term Restructure provided, "confirmation bias." Instead, I think they evince my claim that many non-white people distrust new white people. And I don't think that means that I'm overlooking how they're overlooking what you claim is my-- what was it, twisted, tortured logic?--because what they say does confirm what I'm saying about "many" non-white people's interactions with new white people.

The post was re-posted by Siditty, who writes that she's been "Angry & Black Since 1976." She re-posted it because she agreed with it. Siditty also wrote,

I can honestly say I am guilty of this. Assuming a white person's motive in the work place or in academia is to try to trap me and treat everything as a competition. I was raised for the most part to be distrustful of whites, even though I was immersed in white culture and surroundings.

Blacks tend to have mistrust for completely different reasons than whites. Whites mistrust blacks because they DON'T know blacks or how black society works. Blacks do because their experiences with whites have led them to it.

Among the commenters there, by my count, ten different people expressed agreement with the post, most or all of them because it matches their own withholding of trust of new white people.

Another African American blogger, Amaryah, was inspired to write her own post about "believe others," again to say that it correlates with her experience. Amaryah writes in part,

Exploring this notion of racial trust, provides a deeper understanding and knowledge of myself and why I may seem stand offish to white people at times. I think it is a fair assessment to say that I put white people I come into contact with to the trust test. They have to prove to me their ability to be constant allies and not fake friends, as it seems that white people seems to think they are friends with black people before they have actually gained black people's trust.

[I'd really be interested in your reaction, Nquest, to Amaryah's post on this topic. Is her logic tortured and twisted too?]

At the Debate Link, David Schraub (who is white) was also inspired by his agreement with my post to write his own. In it, he says in part, in words that seem to me to reiterate and perhaps expand on my post's basic point,

[A]cross American history, Whiteness itself has been a social marker of something to be approaching [sic] with caution and prudence as a Black person. . . . Whites can, through their deeds, show themselves to be trustworthy (or ratify the original suspicion of mistrust). No mainstream minority writer holds that there is an ontological bar preventing Whites from being trustworthy. But many many would say that it is still wiser for people of color to adopt a default of mistrust. For -- though there are fewer cases of racially motivated violence in America today -- the risks of assuming trustworthiness remain for many people of color. People of color still must be quite guarded around Whites . . .

Finally, on this blog, the post provoked 18 comments, 9 of which basically express agreement, and several of which are by commenters who directly attest to their own forms of distrust for new white people.

So basically, the post provoked a lot of discussion here and elsewhere, mostly or largely by non-white people (with the exception of David Schraub) who agreed with it because it basically describes their own approach in many instances to unfamiliar white people.

I don't see these many further iterations of my post's basic point as "confirmation bias." I see them, in their relatively, proportionally large numbers, as confirmation. Of my original point, that is, that white people often don't realize how often new non-white people mistrust them because they are white, and because that whiteness signifies the possibility, and perhaps even the probability, that they will be disappointing to the new non-white person in ways that so many white folks have been before.

Okay, now I'm going to go through, by my count, the 27 different comments that you wrote in this here thread to see if I've missed anything . . .

As far as the unspecified "voices", how does whatever you call yourself referencing (got any quotes?) equate to "many" or "most"??

Does what I've quoted above satisfy this question, or do you want even more examples? I could pull out more from the comments thread at Siditty and so on, and from still other blogs that linked to the post, and also from the comments at my original post, but so could you. . .

Also, you and Restructure and, I think, jw, have been vexed by my generalizing from specific examples of people saying (as I still believe the three quoted people in the original post say, despite your efforts to prove, if I'm reading you right, that they're not saying it) that they often distrust new, unproven white people to my own statements that "many" and "most" non-white people do so. I think the many examples cited above do constitute "many," though I guess I don't have enough to say "most," since I haven't polled 51% of the non-white population on this topic. In recognition of this fallacious use of the word "most," I'm going to change it in this post, "express amazement," to "many." This problem does not appear in the other post we're discussing, "believe others," so I yet to see a reason to change anything there.

That's all I can see for now, Nquest, in the three hours it's taken me here to finally respond more fully to your comments. I look forward to your further input.

So far what I'm gathering is that you now want to know where I got the original idea that a lot of non-white folks don't immediately trust new white folks.

Macon, my request has been consistent throughout. I'm not just "now" asking/questioning the source of the original idea that gave you the thought you articulated which is, obviously, your own interpretation. "Most" POC surely don't hold the belief that all/any random White they encounter is "probably" racist and act/react to "new" White people according to such an idea.

The second someone Black would suggest that in a conversation the overwhelming response from other African-Americans is: all Whites aren't racist.

It's ridiculous to think POC go around worrying about whether every White person they meet are racist as if they should live in fear of whatever racist stereotype some individual White person will "enact."

It's ridiculous to even think that the actions of the historical KKK would have caused such "terror" if it wasn't for the whole society that sanctioned the terrorism of the KKK. If that was ever a one-on-one situation, one KKK member vs. one Rosewood, shotgun toting Black homeowner, I think Black people would have taken those odds. (More on your individualizing racism, later.)

When I wrote in the comments that my original sources were "hooks and others," I didn't mean the quote by hooks that's in this post.

Macon, your exact words were "hooks voice as quoted above was a major one for me." "AS QUOTED ABOVE"... which obviously can't refer to anything other than what you posted in the original post generated to create this thread.

I've read many books and essays by her, and I remember her saying about her childhood that she'd been told, or even trained, not to trust whites.

Well, Macon, that's problematic because Hooks was born in 1952 which makes her parents and elders who taught her not only right to prepare her for the racism she would face in a society steeped in and trying to rip itself from the Jim Crow racism and virtual apartheid that existed North and South. Even then, it wasn't a person's Whiteness... it was all about those other factors, ACTIONS of Whites and LESSONS LEARNED FROM OTHERS' PAIN, with the social currency of WHITE SUPREMACY as expressed in the Jim Crow era looming large.

she writes about a general terror of sorts that is still sometimes her response to certain largely white situations... I don't have the essay with me now

When did you get the impression that "most" POC were born in 1952 or before 1970 and feel this same "terror" Hooks feels?

You have to know you're decontextualizing this and still making an untenable leap. There are plenty of African-Americans (who do not constitute all of POC) from Hooks' generation, the "affirmative action" generation who tell stories of being the only Black in the immediate period after the civil rights era who don't speak of said "terror" but rather of the challenges it presents, the "race representative" issues, etc.

There's a complexity your view is lacking and something that can't be properly understood without looking at the full context of what Hooks said, particularly what she said about "Whiteness" so to speak or what she articulated as the exact reason why she felt such "terror" in all White settings. We almost have to question if a lot of her feelings have to do with when she was born and what her formative experiences were in all white settings growing up or those lessons her elders drilled in her growing up.

In my personal situation, being about a generation younger than Hooks, there are a lot of times I don't even notice when I'm the only one and even when I do it's not "terror" I feel and that's also not what gets communicated to me from people in Hooks generation. In fact, in one situation, I had an older Black co-worker ask me if I noticed that we were the only ones. It was just an observation on his part and maybe some disappointment because there wasn't more of us (perhaps disappointment in the companies less than stellar history in employing POC) but it certainly wasn't "terror."

Because I can readily stipulate to those things I know about African-Americans and my doubts that Hooks or the POC you know who intended to say they are/were PREJUDICE, assuming all or any random White person was probably racist until proven otherwise... Well, because of that, because of the diversity of experiences and responses we POC have, as human beings... because of that I'm sure I can say that you have no reason to believe that "most" POC are PREJUDICE against Whites viewing all Whites as probably racist.

Again, there is no need for that because of the ACTIONS or statements of the most racist Whites and even the subtle ones afford POC the opportunity to not have to make any judgments about Whites until AFTER THE FACT. Indeed, in your own objection about the "subtle ones" EVERYTHING you said stipulated to judgments POC could make AFTER THE FACT which is the exact opposite of the PREJUDICE or pre-judging your idea insisted was the case. Recapping... Judgment made:

1) AFTER THE FACT that... A white person’s allegiance to colorblindness is determined to be false;2) AFTER THE FACT that... A white person suddenly and curiously compliments a POC for being “articulate”;3) AFTER THE FACT that... A white person does something, makes a statement or commits an ACTION that is judged, after the statement or ACTION is made, to be a “subtle form” of racism.

No pre-judging needed or practiced in any of those cases, Macon.

So, where did the ORIGINAL idea come from, for me, that non-whites often withhold their trust from whites more that whites realize?

Macon, the question I've asked you has and is clearly where exactly you got the idea that "many" and "most" POC stereotype Whites as probably racist (i.e. racist/guilty until proven not-racist/innocent) and therefore withhold trust until they can tell one way or the other. That should be more and more clear as I have been more and more explicit.

It's also clear from the 5 factors I pointed out about McCall, that you have made yourself blind to those factors due to your bias of focusing on or presuming that it is a person's Whiteness that's at issue AS IF any human being just up and trusts "new", "strange" and "unfamiliar" people they encounter in life.

The idea just doesn't make sense, Macon.

It's clear to me that you either don't understand what the POC you've referenced have communicated to you, seeing all those things inexplicably ONLY through the lens of Whiteness and, in effect saying those POC are PREJUDICE against Whites just because they are White.

I also don't understand why that's such an important point for you to make as if you have to believe that POC are just as prejudice-racist as Whites are. Hence your weird question about whether I think POC are "colorblind" when encountering "NEW" White people.

For some reason, you still haven't answered the fundamental question: WHO THE HELL TRUSTS "NEW" PEOPLE WHEN THEY ENCOUNTER THEM?

So, really? What does Whiteness have to do with it?

JW tried to get you to explain this odd expectation or ridiculous basis for your whole idea which assumes that POC would trust "new", "strange", "unfamiliar" Whites if only they were not White or didn't have "Whiteness" (HOWEVER YOU'RE DEFINING IT = you haven't defined it) and, by your still unsupported idea that POC view "new" Whites as "probably racist" just because... "Hey, this person is White/has "Whiteness"..."

True. I've heard a few Black people express the idea ("whites as suspect racist")but it's always in the context of their EXPERIENCE and ACTIONS -- i.e. after the fact judgments, perhaps even a defense/coping mechanism or strategy for survival/sanity.

You know what? What I'd like to see is one of those POC you got this idea expound on it. I'm thinking you lost something in the translation because I doubt they intended on saying they viewed (and treated) you and any other White person they just met as racist/probably racist because they are or were just PREJUDICE like that.

And you have to know even in what you alluded to about Hooks feeling of "terror" in all White settings that NOTHING indicated (well, nothing you stated) mentioned the idea that "All these White folks are probably racist." In that sense, it's clear you just CREATED your own INTERPRETATION because it's a clear leap in logic to go from Hooks talking about whatever uncomfortable feeling or feeling of "terror" (which we have no idea what she meant by using that term) as a Black woman, and feminist (if she was at that time) in a room full of White folk... it's a leap in logic to take that comment to mean that she was suggesting that all those White folks were racist/probably racist.

If that idea was the case, then on those occasions when the numerical tables are turned then we would have anti-racist Whites, e.g., saying they feel/felt Blacks were probably racist when they found themselves nearly all-Black gatherings and noticed how uncomfortable they felt when White Privilege in the McIntosh "knapsack" of always being able to be in the company of other Whites (in places were Whites predominate) was suspended. But that's not what we hear. The typical observation stops at people reflecting on how uncomfortable they felt because of being so outnumbered.

There is a clear difference and you have YET to come up with a statement by anyone non-white, much less anything that would suggest that "most" POC, who believe what you did want to attribute to them/us: that "most" POC view all Whites as "probably" racist and insist that Whites prove they are not racist before "trusting" them.

From my vantage point, you clearly lost something in the translation and considering the curious moral equivalence you tried to draw, not to mention all the other factors you ignore and continue to turn a blind eye to, to make the claim you do... Well, it's rather obvious to me that you are PROJECTING something you feel or know Whites do and assuming POC do the same when you don't have evidence to that effect.

The leaps in logic you make are not evidence. Nothing you related about Hooks' idea went as far as you did in the claim you made that I am contending with. And I don't separate 1 and 2.1. many non-white people, whiteness itself often makes a person less than trustworthy

2. white individuals can only begin to gain the full trust of most non-white people after they’ve proven themselves unlikely to think and act on the basis of commonly held stereotypes about non-whites.

They are two elements in one claim you made and Hooks' reflection on the "terror" she felt can't be summed up as all about the "Whiteness" of the people who outnumbered her in those settings. There is nothing there to show that she linked the feeling of "terror" to "Whiteness" and Whiteness alone.

The fact that she was so outnumbered and whatever that meant to her, by itself, is another factor besides Whiteness that's at play. Also, your original statement implied that the idea applies to single/solitary White individuals.

Hooks definitely did not suggest (from what you presented) that a mere White individual caused those feelings of "terror" she wrote about.

I'm not saying, and hooks also doesn't say, that she experiences that terror every time she's in a room full of white people. It just comes up once in awhile for her, and again, she's calling for white acknowledgment of that fear, which again, she herself acknowledges is an unreasonable response to the situation at hand (and yet, sometimes, probably rarely, it does arise).

You spend a lot of time in that last comment emphasizing the word "most." Please acknowledge that I have reduced my claim to "many," and please acknowledge as well what this reduction does to your case against my posts.

It's clear to me that you either don't understand what the POC you've referenced have communicated to you, seeing all those things inexplicably ONLY through the lens of Whiteness and, in effect saying those POC are PREJUDICE against Whites just because they are White.

I don't think they're prejudiced in the usual sense of that term, which means an unfair presumption that all members of a group are the same. I mean that they're REALISTIC. Nquest, in our white supremacist society, white people are TRAINED to be racists. I've been working for a long time now against that training, but I'm still a racist. That's what a white supremacist society does to white people. Tim Wise also regularly admits that he's still a racist.

I think I now realize that about most white people (and again, also about myself), but most white people don't. I think that MANY, and MAYBE even most, POC do realize that.

Another black blogger, Abagond, puts this well, as part of a message to white people about what they should know. Maybe it would be a good message for you too?

Most whites are blind to their own racism. . . . Whites can afford to be blind to it like that, blacks cannot. That is why blacks seem so “sensitive”, why they seem to see racism that is not there (you think). You are racist. You might not think you are, but you are. America was built on racism and still runs on it. It is still an important part of how white Americans think about themselves and the world. You cannot grow up in America and escape it.

I'm not saying that all of the non-white distrust out there of new white folks is realistic in this sense. Some of it's stereotypes too, as one or both of these posts points out (surely it's not only some whites who have stereotypes about non-whites; surely the reverse is true too).

The fact that she was so outnumbered and whatever that meant to her, by itself, is another factor besides Whiteness that's at play.

????

But it's whiteness, and her blackness, that makes her outnumbered.

Hooks definitely did not suggest (from what you presented) that a mere White individual caused those feelings of "terror" she wrote about.

Right, but you asked where the original idea of the post came from, and I explained that hooks was one of many sources for it, especially her idea about terror in the presence of whiteness. Yes, it's a generational thing, and I'm glad the younger you never feels it. But why are my original sources so important to you? What do you think about the many responses AFTER THE FACT, as you like to put it, after, that is, the post was posted here and elsewhere, and so on? Do those many responses not indicate that "many" non-white people do withhold trust from white people?

And finally, a terminological point--isn't there a difference between "withholding trust" in someone and "prejudging" someone? Between waiting to see, in the first case, if someone will prove to be yet another racist, and deciding before the fact that that some IS a racist? I'm arguing, you see, for the former, so I think there is a difference, and that it's an important one.

So the claim I meant to make is NOT that POC distrust white people just because of their whiteness, nor that they do so because they're stereotyping whites.

Macon, why has it taken you this long to explain the claim you "meant" to make?

Don't use POC and things you think they/we think as pawns/tools to shame Whites.

it's that many POC know that whites commonly, and often unconsciously, hold and enact stereotypes.

And that factoid has what to do with whether POC will or won't "trust" Whites and see them as "all bad" until they purge all kinds of racism, conscious or unconscious, from every ounce of their being? (Racist = "all bad" or however POC would have to view Whites in YOUR idea.)

I think that's pretty much what Tim Wise is getting at

But Tim Wise didn't make a claim about "most" POC doing that and said nothing about the judgment being a prejudice -- i.e. some pre-formed idea POC have. His comments were about judgments POC could make based on the ACTIONS of Whites (wonder what the hell he/they are up to/doing) and not based solely on their Whiteness.

I referenced Tim Wise and Jensen earlier because I've seen very little if any reactions to Wise that indicated Black people were suspicious of him. What I've seen is people judge his writing on its merits and praise him for his insight or the way he articulates the in's and out's of various issues in his commentaries with such clarity.

It's another case where a new white person's racial status is a signal to non-white people, based on their previous and often disappointing experiences with other white people

Ummm.... Wise just made a vague statement. He cited not a single incident where his intentions were questioned and also, again, didn't say anything about how many POC viewed him with suspicion.

And it's really funny, you telling me about "another case" and what those things "signal" to non-white people. lol

It's like you're preaching, trying to tell me what my reality and experience is and what I know to be experience of Black people, in particular, and, more importantly, how Black people talk about their experiences. You have to know that I've lived all my life not just reading stuff in books but being privy to all manner of conversations that contextualize the things Black people say and, at least, the awareness I have that there's more to things you allude to with the express purpose to make a point to White people.

Wise is stating a recognition here about his white self and how it's commonly received by some other people

Wise made no such statement about how he is "commonly" received "distrustfully" by POC. He put no number on it and never stipulated to how prevalent the "distrust", common or otherwise.

There you go PROJECTING again.

And it's like you really have an issue with nuance and paying attention:

Blacks tend to have mistrust for completely different reasons than whites. - Siddity

That strikes against your claim in the "trust" thread you cross-referenced here in this thread. There you said:

Just as white folks tend to size up new black individuals in racial terms, waiting for the black person to prove herself better than "other black people" (and I believe that most whites do this, whether they realize it or not), black people often do the same thing to white people.

That's the problematic part of your claim and the reason why the stereotyping inherent in it is problematic. After all, you also tried to assert that Black people/POC don't view/treat Whites as individuals.

You simply have no support for this idea of yours. You're trying to PROJECT what Whites do onto Blacks/POC.

I'd really be interested in your reaction, Nquest, to Amaryah's post on this topic. Is her logic tortured and twisted too?

Hmmm.... She didn't claim that "most" POC do what you said they do which is STEREOTYPE Whites as racist until proven otherwise. Damn what you "meant" (you've only expressed that belatedly). I've dealt with what you said and what you say you "meant" is complicated by your own words in the original "trust" thread:

I don’t imagine the man in this mug shot looks trustworthy to you. If you were to meet him on the street, or in a bar, what features or characteristics make him untrustworthy? His tattoos? His broken nose? The desolate look in his eyes?

How about the fact that he's white?

... if you're a non-white person, there's a better chance that you would list the mere fact of his racial whiteness as a suspicious characteristic.

Now comparing that background material with the denials you've made in this thread that you were not saying, even though you originally said, Whiteness itself was the issue... we have a perfect example of the intellectual dishonesty you've been tagged with.

the mere fact of his racial whiteness

Is the same as "just because s/he is White."

(Note: You don't follow along well. Restructure was very explicit that he agreed with my quoted statement ("just because s/he is White") which you assumed was yours.)

Finally, on this blog, the post provoked 18 comments, 9 of which basically express agreement, and several of which are by commenters who directly attest to their own forms of distrust for new white people.

Once again, what does Whiteness itself have to do with that? It's like you don't comprehend very basic things. Amaryah said:

Over on the blog, “Stuff White People Do,” the author, Macon D has a post up dealing with white people's expectation that others find them trustworthy. This has been something I've come across quite frequently, particularly in my time at Belmont. The presumption that blacks should assume whites to be worthy of their trust speaks volumes to the ignorance of many whites on the history of black and white relations in America.

It's obvious she agreed with the idea that White people shouldn't expect automatic trust which you've suggested comes from the idea that Whites view themselves as trustworthy which is wholly different from the idea that you have failed to do with. The very idea that you're trying to say it's Whiteness as opposed to NEWness that's the basis of the distrust (or any of those AFTER THE FACT factors) "presumes" that "new" Whites would otherwise be deemed trustworthy if it wasn't for their Whiteness (however you're defining it).

So you've failed the simple process identification by elimination. You haven't eliminated any of the other factors as the ultimate source of distrust which is what you're ultimately saying: Whiteness, itself, equals "untrustworthy" and you've PROJECTED that bs onto POC.

Note: There is a difference with being distrustful and not extended trust. Trust is like respect. It's supposed to be earned in the first place.

So, Macon, please distinguish between the "trust" test POC put other POC through vs the ones they put Whites through and tell me the reason why the "trust" test exist for other POC.

"New", "Strange", "Unfamiliar."

That's the basis of the "trust" test whenever you get through and when Amaryah talks about the PRESUMPTION then that, too, is an ACTION she's responding to. That would suggest the very thing McCall (note the 5 factors you ignored about his story) did:

It was obvious that many of my co-workers had had little exposure to blacks. They seemed overpolite and unsure how to relate to me.

Knowing that Black people, e.g., are human beings and don't just trust "new" people, including "new" White people because Whites just assume they're "good" and got it like that is part of the ACTIONS Black people, in this case, account for in the basic human practice of deciding who to trust.

POC don't just trust other POC just because they are POC, Macon. Why would you act like there is something different going on when POC put White people through a "trust" test?

I'm saying Whiteness is not the reason for "trust" test. That should be obvious. What you're confusing, though, is the complicated views people have on race trying to make absolute statements about them AFTER YOU INTERPRET THEM in ways that are way too simplistic to explain why people do what they do.

This would hold true for anyone regardless of the presence or absence of Whiteness:

They have to prove to me their ability to be constant allies and not fake friends

It would seem to me that Amaryah has had actual experiences as opposed to assumptions made based on some prejudice/pre-judging of Whites based on Whiteness that has provided her with cues/clues that someone White "just seems to think they are friends with black people before they [are]."

Hmmmm.... Now, at no point did you specify that this "trust" thing was about whether or not POC have special/exclusive "trust" test for Whiteness before they accept them as friends. This whole time you've kept this topic is a vague, abstract. But since we're quoting Tim Wise left and right, let's see what he has to say on this friendship issue:

Apparently, we even see them as our buddies. 75 percent of whites in one recent poll indicated that they had multiple close black friends. Sounds great, until you realize that 75 percent of white Americans represents about 145 million people. 145 million who say they have multiple black friends, despite the fact that there are only 35 million black people to go around.

Which means one of two things: either whites are clueless about black people, friendships, or both; or black folks are mighty damned busy, running from white house to white house to white house, being our friends.

Things like that factor into the whole trust scenario and, if anything, it's the fact that Whites "don't know how to relate" to POC (those who don't) that impact whether trust is extended to them. And it would be a White person's inability to relate and, even more turn offish, someone White just knowing they should be trusted and know intimate details about POC, how did McCall say, "personal business", etc. before any routine test any "new" human being would have to pass is completed.

If any random stranger came up to and asked you details about your personal life, even small talk stuff, before they ever greeted you or were in a socially acceptable situation to make small talk with you, you would find it hard to trust them just because the broke from the normative rules or order in which you accept people even making small talk with you.

That's what's at play here, Macon. To the extent that Whiteness is involved, it's due to, perhaps, the cultural differences between Whites and POC if not the idea you've identified where Whites assume they are trustworthy which naturally contributes to the way they ACT and it's ACTIONS born of that kind of thinking that, in and of itself, exacerbates "racial trust" issues, not to mention POC responding AFTER THE FACT to Whites act.

Take the curious questions Black people say they get from Whites who ask them about their hair. It is ridiculous to think that Black people just assume on the basis of Whiteness that this "new" White person I've just encountered in going to ask me about my hair or some such.

Even if someone says, "I just knew s/he was going to ask me about my hair" chances are they picked up on non-verbal cues or something that came direct from that White person's ACTIONS. Again, this is in stark contrast to what you've stated:

Just as white folks tend to size up new black individuals in racial terms, waiting for the black person to prove herself better than "other black people" (and I believe that most whites do this, whether they realize it or not), black people often do the same thing to white people.

That quote being the very idea that permeated your thoughts on this thread.

white people often don't realize how often new non-white people mistrust them because they are white

Which shows that you're confused. You wanted to deny that you said or went on to say that you never meant the "mistrust" was "because they are white" now, not paying attention to what you've said before, you're saying it here because of article of faith of yours.

I'll mention again that "mistrust" is a different thing altogether than prematurely trusting someone.

Human beings don't tend to trust any other human being before they deter that they can trust the other person which necessarily means that there are certain "trust" tests a person has to pass.

Whiteness, itself, has nothing to do with it and NONE of the people you cited (with a possible exception of Restructure) have said that they assume Whites are "probably" racist and that is the basis for them withholding "trust" vs. the RELIABILITY and GENUINENESS factors Amaryah talked about via "constant allies" and real as opposed to "fake friends."

Notice how she said nothing about she just assumes the "new" White person is probably/possibly racist. NOTHING about making that White person prove their not a klansman (i.e. "one of them") or anything approach the abstract nonsense you keep trying to PROJECT onto POC.1. for many non-white people, whiteness itself often makes a person less than trustworthy

2. white individuals can only begin to gain the full trust of most non-white people after they’ve proven themselves unlikely to think and act on the basis of commonly held stereotypes about non-whites.

You have been intellectually dishonest in trying to say Amaryah agreed with you because you keep separating 1 and 2 and just assuming 2 is there when you think you see 1.

A number of things Amaryah said complicates your claim and shows how you're PROJECTING. She says:

"it is important to point out that black assumptions towards whites aren't assumptions that whites are somehow mean or evil people, but that they are oblivious to the nature of their privilege and racial realities in America."

Simply put, her reasoning is different from yours, Macon. The typical response from Whites who deny racism is the hyperbole that to even say that most or all Whites harbor negative racial stereotypes means White people are painted as "evil (racists)."

The very point that Amaryah said was important you ignored and failed to see how it doesn't support what you said. Inserting the hyperbole, her statement reads like this:

"it is important to point out that black assumptions towards whites aren't assumptions that whites are somehow racist or "evil" racist people...."

That's is completely opposite to your claim. I will not separate your 1 from you 2 and act like your assumption that POC stereotype Whites as racist/probably racist just because they are White has any basis in fact or in the stories you quote.

Also, I wouldn't equate what she said about Whites (those to whom it applies) being "oblivious to the nature of their privilege and racial realities" to your tortured notion that "non-white people distrust new white people"... "because they are white, and because that whiteness signifies the possibility, and perhaps even the probability" that they will "think and act on the basis of commonly held stereotypes about non-whites."

Again, trust, not extending based on factor(s), and distrust, practiced on the basis of factor(s) are two different things.

You've not only failed the process of elimination test but your failed to show how the POC you cite are saying the same thing you are and for the same reasons. Plain and simple. Don't like you whiteness training fool you.

I hold out your ridiculous retorts (your absolute/extreme statements about my White co-workers who must be "incredibly progressive" for me to trust them to "NEVER" enact "common forms of white racism" when that was NEVER the issue AND your "colorblind" question regarding what I think about POC when they encounter "new" White people) as proof that you're confused or just can't tell the difference.

Again, I'll stress the DEMONSTRATED difference in what McCall, Hooks and, now, Amaryah have said and not said compared to what you did.

Macon, I get the impression that your problems with understanding what Nquest is saying is something else and this is how you perceive issues in general.Western culture tends to simplify. Black-white, either-or, trust-distrust, good-bad etc when in reality there are many grey layers in between. Gaining knowledge means to discover these grey layers.Western culture also tends to separate things. We see the day. We see the night. We see the shadow. We see the sunlight. We don't connect that there is no night without day, no shadow without sun etc.And for example, Western medicine looks at the body and calls cancer a 'disease'. In homeopathy (not the Westernized faked one) cancer is a symptom of a disrupted wholeness. Racism is like the cancer, the symptom, of a disrupted 'body'(white society). Homeopathy doesn't treat symptoms, it heals the whole body/person.This point of view is very different from our Western point of view.You are fixated on "trust" without seeing the many different levels, grey layers, of trust. You are looking for simplyfied answers, understanding, when in reality all things are much more nuanced. Nquest made these nuances very clear.

Macon, it would help if you could keep things you yourself say straight.

I don't think they're prejudiced in the usual sense of that term, which means an unfair presumption that all members of a group are the same. I mean that they're REALISTIC.

Is no consolation or improvement. I reject the idea no matter how you spin it. It's even easier to reject it when you don't even support the idea when you cite Hooks:

she's calling for white acknowledgment of that fear, which again, she herself acknowledges is an unreasonable response to the situation

Macon, something that's UNREASONABLE can't, at the same time be, REALISTIC when you're trying to say you're not saying its an UNFAIR presumption. And, again, HOOKS DID NOT SAY SHE ASSUMED WHITES WERE RACISTS!!!

That was your claim that POC "distrust" Whites because they assume they are "probably racist." Hooks reflections on the feelings of "terror" she feels... NEVER says that.

Please acknowledge that nothing has changed in my disagreement with you, that I didn't just "now" want to know this or that and please acknowledge that you keep trying to avoid the fact that you have NO SUPPORT for your idea regarding the assumption by POC that Whites are "probably racist".

Please acknowledge that you have not passed the process of elimination tests and keep trying to avoid the complexity of the issue, indeed, any specifics that would highlight the complexity, because you have this jargon laden article of faith. Acknowledge that you haven't even acknowledged that human beings don't just up an trust "new" people they come in contact with and what all of the things I've said impacts your still problematic, still tortured notion.

Nothing has changed. You can't show how "many" POC say they "distrust" Whites because they are White and because they assume Whites are probably racist.

Nquest, in our white supremacist society, white people are TRAINED to be racists.

And that has nothing to do with how POC view Whites in the many different types of interpersonal relationships they have with them.

What is this non-point about but showing how you've PROJECTED your own ideology and articles of faith (i.e. ideological belief) onto POC?

I've been working for a long time now against that training, but I'm still a racist.

Again what is this non-point about What do you want me to do with this information? If I was to apply in a way that's meaningful to me then I would say that you've made the contentious claim you did because some faulty training on race you've been given or accepted.

Abagond, puts this well, as part of a message to white people about what they should know. Maybe it would be a good message for you too?

What you talkin' bout Willis?

A "good message" for me because of what? What do those non-points have to do with the issue at hand?

To say/believe/know that "all Whites are racist" or been given racist programming in a racist society does not say that POC just assume that Whites are racist in terms of how they approach interpersonal relationships with Whites.

You're taking an argument made to make a different point to try to help you with this tortured logic of yours based on making a leap in logic. As noted, Amaryah's idea didn't support yours because her reasoning wasn't based on the assumption that Whites are racist or probably racist.

You act like you can't tell the difference between a square and a rectangle. You get off on the similarities that exist they both shapes with four sides.

But it's whiteness, and her blackness, that makes her outnumbered.

UNINTELLIGIBLE. Your claim is the thought in the mind of POC is that Whites are probably racist.

It's the TOTAL ABSENCE of any statement to that effect from Hooks that clearly shows that you have NO SUPPORT from her for your original idea. You did not get that "Whites are probably racist" and therefore not to be trusted stuff from her.

you asked where the original idea of the post came from

And I'll keeping asking until you can actually show how your idea that POC just assume Whites are probably racist when they encounter "new" White people actually came from somebody but you.

You simply have not done that.

why are my original sources so important to you?

(No response because of the sure stupidity involved in asking a question like that.)

What do you think about the many responses AFTER THE FACT, as you like to put it, after, that is, the post was posted here and elsewhere, and so on? Do those many responses not indicate that "many" non-white people do withhold trust from white people?

Those responses indicate that you don't know what you're talking about and they differ from in terms of the very important reasons you gave for why you believe (and it's your belief) POC "withhold trust from White people."

You act like you can't freakin' read to comprehend.

And finally, a terminological point--isn't there a difference between "withholding trust" in someone and "prejudging" someone?

I'm sure there is but what you described was PRE-JUDGING. Pure and simple. Matter of fact, your complete claim (as opposed to the one selective element you try to justify and find confirmation for to the exclusion of the whole) tries to use the "realistic" nature of the PREJUDICE/pre-judging by POC as a way to justify the DISTRUST or MISTRUST, terms you've used, which is different from the idea of WITHHOLDING TRUST.

You can't even be clear about what you're saying. You are non-responsive, like you're in a state of logical comatose when you can't even acknowledge or respond to truism that applies to all human beings and who they give trust to.

Clearly you meant to say that POC mis/distrust Whites because they are Whites and because Whites are "probably racist" which makes your "message" thing that was absolute in same all Whites are racist pretty hilarious. Why were you less than absolute to begin with?

With the stuff you bring up, why mince words using "probably" and "possibly" instead of saying flat out ALL WHITES ARE RACISTS?

That's just a rhetorical point to show how you're conscious of not just coming out and accusing ALL WHITES as being racist.

isn't there a difference... Between waiting to see, in the first case, if someone will prove to be yet another racist, and deciding before the fact that that some IS a racist?

NOPE. Re: the former, the person is "waiting to see" based on pre-judging AND you claimed POC already had Whites pegged as probably racist so your original comment eliminated any waiting period.

Ask a sample of POC you come in contact with here on your blog or others that appreciated the opportunity your post presented to talk about "racial trust" to respond to this statement and see what the responses are:

Just as white folks tend to size up new black individuals in racial terms, waiting for the black person to prove herself better than "other black people" (and I believe that most whites do this, whether they realize it or not), black people often do the same thing to white people.

I categorically reject that and you've presented nothing to show that the moral equivalence exist much less the thought process where POC just assume all or any random White person is racist or probably racist and, in so doing, fail to treat Whites as individuals (remember your bs claim?) but, instead, view Whites with distrust until they prove they are not like "them" racist White folk over there.

And, seriously, if you really believed the idea that "all Whites are racist" and the fact that they are or probably are is relevant in every type of interpersonal relationship Whites have with POC then there is no way Whites can ever "prove" they are not racist when someone like Tim Wise is, as you say, "still racist" and you feel that idea is relevant as if Tim Wise Whiteness has "many" POC not trusting him.

in addition, whiteness and whites "can't see their race" or are "not aware of their privilege", it's "invisible", all this is only true if you look from a European perspective on it. The many gray layers of knowledge are there. In every white. Not always consciously. But they are there.

I find Nquest's take on nonwhite people not mistrusting based on whiteness but on actions or reason to distrust, if I'm understanding it right, the way all people probably are meant by God to be and the humanity of it makes me feel instinctively that he's right.

I find Macon so good and sensitive to the brutality of whiteness that maybe this 'whiteness' concept is being blanketly atttibuted without enough nuance to all white people in his posts -

- but not attributed that way in the minds of nonwhite people, does that differentiation between whiteness as a concept, versus white people, seen as individuals, make sense Macon?

jw, since you find Nquest's words compelling, how do you suggest changing one or both posts in light of them, and in light of your words?

First, you can't change your post (and which one would be the second one??) so that it can become correct, because your entire post is based on a false assumption and a non-understanding. The question for me still remains: What do you even want to say?

It bothers me when there's a tone from any white person who categorically says that another white person's opinion is wrong, when we all are unmaking ourselves.

We are all too much speculating about what nonwhite people think on some of these things, why not ask them?

Does anyone nonwhite here agree with Nquest's assertions that initial mistrust of white people because of their whiteness is not common among nonwhite people?

Is this something Macon is not right about? Speaking of being not right -- Macon, may I reword the last part of my last post.

I of course know you of all people make a distinction between 'whiteness' and individual people who are white -- and I am learning from you on that, you have thought it out more deeply than the majority of white people, but what I meant is --

-- do you think that Nquest's point could mean that nonwhite people are seeing us and trusting us or not trusting us as individuals they size us, versus seeing a reason for lack of trust in conformity to whiteness theory? (Does that make sense, or do I need to rethink the question?)

I of course know you of all people make a distinction between 'whiteness' and individual people who are white

No one can tell what that distinction is especially when Macon cross referenced his "trust" thread which included the following:

I don’t imagine the man in this mug shot looks trustworthy to you. If you were to meet him on the street, or in a bar, what features or characteristics make him untrustworthy? His tattoos? His broken nose? The desolate look in his eyes?

How about the fact that he's white?

If you're a white person, you're unlikely to list his whiteness as one of the characteristics that would keep you from trusting him. You might cite the "white power" sympathies suggested by his tattooed swastika, but not the simple fact of his whiteness itself. However, if you're a non-white person, there's a better chance that you would list the mere fact of his racial whiteness as a suspicious characteristic.

So, despite his denials here and whatever mysterious distinction he's made before (mysterious because the distinction is conspicuous in its absence), Macon has asserted that non-white people would call the guy "untrustworthy" just because he is White or the mere fact that he is White, "itself" would be a (non)trust factor.

So, I wonder how we can make the distinction that Macon is examining Whites/Whiteness or, instead, including non-whites as principal co-focus of his writing because he feels the need to talk about more than just Whites/Whiteness.

If you're a white person, you're unlikely to list his whiteness as one of the characteristics that would keep you from trusting him. You might cite the "white power" sympathies suggested by his tattooed swastika, but not the simple fact of his whiteness itself.

I think that is again a very simplyfied way of thinking. When that post was posted I didn't get the 'message'. Because you can't separate the man's race from his displayed attitude. So while whites may not list "I don't trust him because he is white", they would know that they won't trust him because he is a white supremacist.

KarenIt bothers me when there's a tone from any white person who categorically says that another white person's opinion is wrong

funny how that works: It bothers you that somebody white doesn't agree = pat on the shoulder, with somebody else who is white, but it does NOT bother you that somebody Black has to "defend" his Black point of view when somebody white makes problematic statements which effect POC.So no, Macon won't get the privilege of white entitlement from me.

Macon, I thought about your writing again and I think the problem for you in this case is that you are white, male and are never forced to think in many levels. Victimized groups and members of groups who could be victimized have to differentiate, otherwise survival would not be possible or anxiety would eat them away.

Ask me as a woman if I trust men, and the answer would be it depends what level you are talking about. You as a white male are not automatically trustworthy because you are white but that doesn't mean that women will mistrust you just because you are male and regardless the violent actions of men towards women. Individual men don't have to prove that they aren't rapists.

On many day-to-day levels you being a man isn't an issue, levels where women can trust men, but on some other levels you being a man becomes the only factor why women might distrust you. But this isn't a generalized or simplyfied mistrust.There is also something else: non-verbal body-language. While people may have the education to be politically correct or to be *decent*, their body-language and also how they frame issues sometimes indicates something different. When your body-language and/or wording is not in harmony of what you want to be, others will realize this. Sometimes on a quite unconscious level - intuition - feelings of knowledge one can't really explain, nonetheless the mistrust/suspicion is justified.

Thanks to all for recent comments on this, and I'm sorry I haven't replied recently. Still don't have time for it yet, but hope to soon. For those still interested, Restructure! has written a post on topics that are also discussed in this thread (though I have no idea how much this thread, or this blog, were an influence for her on this post):

As I wrote above, "Stick to the words on the blog," meaning this one. I'm now going to amend that--in your comments on this blog, stick to the words of this blog's posts--their topics and issues, in other words. And as I wrote at R's blog, if you want to discuss something different with me, write me an email.

I'll get back to points raised here about this blog's posts when I have a large enough block of free time to do that thoroughly.

I can reach you here. What I'm asking you about occurred here, on this blog, in this thread and they were your words - i.e. a topic you brought up.

You didn't "stick to the topic" when you asked me INSTEAD OF RESTRUCTURE "what's the difference between dishonest and intellectual dishonest?"

No, you wanted to talk about off-topic stuff. Indeed, you wanted to change the subject from the "intellectually dishonest" response(s) you gave to me:

Is there something about you that keeps bringing you back to the web site of a white, desperate, intellectually dishonest liar? And why do you think a person you've repeatedly labeled that way would want to continue a discussion with you?

Since you chose not to EMAIL me with all that OFF-TOPIC stuff, I have no reason to email you.

It's not only revealing that you have this differential treatment thing going on with respect to Restructure/me (let alone other differential treatment talked about) but it's revealing when you don't practice what you preach.

Okay, on the topic, why were you dishonest when claimed that "hooks voice as quoted above was a major one for me" when what you quoted from Hooks in your header-post had nothing do with the trust/distrust issue? And, why did you compound that by claiming you didn't suggest that Hooks supported you claim and then made it worst by saying it was other stuff Hooks has said and the example you gave still didn't support your point about Blacks distrusting Whites because they are White AND probably are racist?

Nowhere have you provided any statements from Hooks to that effect. The only thing you referenced was Hooks saying she felt terror-bly uncomfortable in a room full of Whites.... on one/some occasions. Never did you quote anything where she said she distrusted Whites because she felt they were probably racist.

Nquest, I wasn't being dishonest, and your use of the word is an ad hominem, isn't it? To label someone dishonest is to say something about the person making an argument, rather than about the argument itself. You're claiming that you know I deliberately misled someone here. But I don't do that on this blog, and you have no way of knowing whether I do or not, because you're not inside my head. Stick to the words on the blog, please, and stop stating your presumptions about something you can't know, which is why I or anyone else writes, or doesn't write, this or that.

I answered your questions earlier about where the initial ideas for the post came from. If anything was misstated there, it was just that, a misstatement, and not a lie. (If that happened, it's because I don't attend to words in a comments section as carefully as I do in the posts. But thanks to you, a linguist-to-be who missed his calling, I'm learning to do so!)

Why do you still want to know where my ideas for the post came from? I want you to stick to the post, or posts, themselves, so that I can consider revising them. All this concern about where I got my ideas in the first place does nothing that I can see to further that goal.

If you still have suggestions for revision of specific parts of the posts, I'm all ears. I know you think their fundamental logic itself is faulty, and also that, presumably, they should therefore be removed altogether, so when I finally find time to revise the two posts in question, I will consider those claims of yours as well.

Nquest, I wasn't being dishonest, and your use of the word is an ad hominem, isn't it?

No, it's not an ad hominem. You didn't tell the truth. That's not a personal attack. That's a statement of fact with respect to what you've said. It's about the argument you made.

You're claiming that you know I deliberately misled someone here.

You're arguing that you have not. You argued that you didn't reference Hooks quoted statement in this thread as supporting your position here. That argument of your has been demonstrated to be false. This is about your false argument and since you, of all people, should have known what you wrote... and since you had every opportunity to go back and look at what you wrote, you deliberately made a misleading statement that you've never corrected.

you have no way of knowing whether I do or not, because you're not inside my head.

That's the issue. Obviously the evidence from your words, the very arguments you've made, show that you have not been honest.

stop stating your presumptions about something you can't know

I'm stating what I do know about what you did say, again, when you had every opportunity to get it right but you chose not to.

If anything was misstated there, it was just that, a misstatement, and not a lie.

No. You were dishonest. It was a willful act because you not only should have known what you said/wrote but, again, you had every opportunity to review what you wrote before you tried to deny saying it.

If that happened, it's because I don't attend to words in a comments section as carefully as I do in the posts.

There is no "if", Macon.

Why do you still want to know where my ideas for the post came from?

First, I asked you about your dishonest statement re: Hooks supporting you -- i.e. "hooks voice as quoted above was a major one for me."

Second, you're asking "why" when the answer is clear in what I said: "Never did you quote anything where she said she distrusted Whites because she felt they were probably racist."

Likewise, none of the Black writers/intellectuals you claimed supported your idea have been shown to do so. Amaryah didn't either yet you tried to claim that they all did when they didn't. Naturally, when it's clear you didn't get it from them, the question stands: where did you get it from?

I want you to stick to the post

That's what I've done. I take you for you word when you explain your position until you contradict yourself or say something that just isn't true, like when you tried to claim Amaryah supported your idea when, reading further, she clearly rejected your notion -- the contentious idea that African-Americans/non-whites distrust Whites because they are White AND because they assume Whites are probably/possibly racist or people who will "enact" common forms of white racism.

All this concern about where I got my ideas in the first place does nothing that I can see to further that goal.

Why? Because you're increasingly clear on how you didn't get that bs from any number of non-white worth talking about?

If you still have suggestions for revision of specific parts of the posts, I'm all ears.

This isn't about revising your post. This is about you having a basis for the statements you making especially when you're claiming PoC do/think this or that.

I know you think their fundamental logic itself is faulty, and also that, presumably, they should therefore be removed altogether

How do you know that? You got some special powers where you know what's going on in my head?

How ironic.

Note: I've said nothing about you removing or revising the thread. NOWHERE. I don't want you to change a word. I want them to remain unchanged so it will be clear that you made an assumption you didn't and still don't have support for.

The things you have said here don't "contribute to a more general anti-racist effort." When you're not truthful and can't deal with things asked by PoC regarding claims you make about PoC, in earnest, then you are doing "no good" by coming up with repeated false answers to my question about where you got your idea from and you are doing "no good" by trying to act there was nothing wrong with your assumption based claim.

We can never "work together" when you find it too hard to be truthful especially when asked about where you get stuff from. We can never "work together" when you think you have a license to make all kinds of ASSUMPTIONS and leaps in logic when it comes to PoC, what they say and what they want, etc.

I never said anything about you removing/altering your posts/threads but you still felt like you could just assume that... the same way you felt like you could just assume things about what Hooks, McCall and Amaryah said when none of them support the statement you made that insists that PoC are prejudice, that they PRE-JUDGE Whites just because they are White based on the assumption you have no support for that PoC figure Whites are probably/possibly racist or will enact "common forms of white racism."

There is no way we can "work together" in anti-racist efforts when you want to support/defend that kind of thinking and refuse to be honest about where you get/got that stuff from.

So, yes, this is still about your claim. So this is all about "the topic" and the words you've used while trying to avoid dealing with the problematic claim you made that does not contribute anti-racist work. You can't do that by making unfounded assumptions.

As I've said above, I have been earnest, by pouring many hours into trying to understand where you and I agree and differ on this. Also, I've already explained where my "assumptions" came from. I'm not avoiding that question. I do, however, consider it less important than what the posts themselves NOW say, wherever the initial assumptions that led to them came from, so that's probably where my inattention to detail on that prior-to-writing-the-post issue comes from. I apologize for any misstatements on that brought about by my inattention to detail in comments I make in a Comments section. Again, I'd rather attend to the more important words, those in the posts themselves, so that I can revise them.

[N]one of them support the statement you made that insists that PoC are prejudice, that they PRE-JUDGE Whites just because they are White based on the assumption you have no support for that PoC figure Whites are probably/possibly racist or will enact "common forms of white racism."

There's a difference between "withholding trust," and judgment, and "being prejudiced."

So, you say my claim that whites should be more self-aware in racial terms does not "contribute [to] anti-racist work." I say that many non-whites are not "prejudiced" in the usual sense of that term, but they do withhold their trust from new white people, often because they're well aware that white people might hold and enact common racist tendencies. And thus, that whites should realize that they're not always considered as automatically trustworthy as they tend to think they are, and also, that that happens because they're perceived as "white" instead of "non-white." I think I've reported "many" instances of non-white withholdings of trust to support my claim, and I also think that the increased white self-awareness that I'm trying to promote with this claim does function in an anti-racist manner. You still haven't convinced me otherwise.

Finally, you haven't answered my question, Nquest. I don't understand why I should communicate with you by trying to answer your questions if you don't try to answer mine.

Again, you wrote: I don't want you to change a word. I want them to remain unchanged so it will be clear that you made an assumption you didn't and still don't have support for.

And I wrote: And what good would that do, Nquest? What good would that do?

What exactly would that supposed proof of something (about me? about my actions?) contribute to a more general anti-racist effort?

The white reality is "amazed" that they aren't considered as norm. There "universality" is being challenged by being seen as 'white'.Subliminal expectations of whites, how the "black or non-white other" has to act toward them: Assimilation into a white society, giving up their own identity, which means also giving up their own reality.Subliminal expectations of whites: Non-whites have to be kind to them because whites consider themselves as kind to them.It's white privilege to intrude and to interfere in non-white people's lives and the subliminal expectation of whites is to be considered as friend, somebody who will be welcomed immediately when s/he meets somebody non-white. Just because they are white.

No you, simply, have not. You have been trying to maintain your unfounded position. That's clear from the post record. You have no foundation for your claim, at least not from Hooks, McCall, Amaryah, etc. and, as a result, you have never seriously, much less honestly, addressed the question of where you got your idea from. To do something in earnest, you can't offer up false positives - i.e. false answers - and ever think you've been serious (and honest)... earnest in your response.

I've already explained where my "assumptions" came from

Macon, when it turns out that you obviously didn't draw your idea from anything your quoted from Hooks, McCall, etc. then you've explained nothing. I played your shell game, looked under each one of them and, again, nothing you quoted from Hooks, McCall, etc. supports your idea which means YOU DIDN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING. You made an unfounded claim. You followed that by claiming you drew you idea from sources where it's clear you did not. Simply put, it's clear you didn't get you idea/assumption/notion from those sources. You've explained nothing.

Nothing you quoted from Hooks, McCall, etc. in the original post or in the comments supported your idea that PoC "withhold" trust from Whites because they figure Whites "might" be racist, etc. The link to Amaryah's blog also clearly did not support YOUR idea that PoC "withhold" trust from Whites because they figure Whites "might" be racist, etc. She was clear in saying whatever lack of extending trust had nothing to do with assumptions about Whites to that effect. So, logically, the question still stands: WHERE DID YOU GET THAT STUFF FROM?

You didn't get it from Nathan McCall. You didn't get it from bell hooks. So where did you get that stuff from? = LONG STANDING QUESTION that remains unanswered.

I say that many non-whites are not "prejudiced" in the usual sense of the term

Macon, I've consciously and repeatedly used the word PRE-JUDGE. I haven't quibbled over whatever the hell being "prejudiced in usual sense" is. I've pointed out how there is no PRE-JUDGING of any kind going on. In fact, I pointed out 4 or 5 things drawn from what you quoted from McCall that were not PRE-JUDGEMENTS but, instead, assessments/judgments made AFTER THE FACT; after McCall observed behavior of his White co-workers. Unable to respond in earnest, you acted like those well founded points were illegitimate; you acted like it was a foreign concept or something though you never could dispute that those things were the product of how McCall (re)acted AFTER THE FACT. Obviously because they complicated your still unfounded claim.

So, Macon, there's is no mystery as to where you and I "disagree." You just have some acceptance issues. You can't accept that your idea is a function of a leap in logic you make, that, or you just want to save face because you can't handle "absolute rejection" even when your idea was absolutely unfounded.

But, go ahead, explain how PoC can think that any random White "might", "probably" or "possibly" be X, Y or Z and whatever the PoC thinks will not be the product of PREJUDICE, even prejudice "in the usual sense" and, more precisely, the word I've used over and over and the word you quoted prior to your response: PRE-JUDGE(MENT). You claimed PoC don't see/view/treat Whites as individuals. You have no foundation for that. That lack of foundation apparently has something to do with your idea that PoC would just see White and make a group based, race based, generalized PRE-JUDGEMENT that says WHITE = PROBABLY/POSSIBLY RACIST = WITHHOLD TRUST/DISTRUST WHITE.

Nowhere have you presented anything from actual PoC who hold that idea you claim you got from them -- no PoC whom we all can actually look at what they said and see if what you claim to have "drawn" from them is true/accurate in terms of what they actually said as opposed to how your filter things in your head.

I have no reason to answer your question which is an extension of yet another unfounded assumption of yours which you presented as something you knew to be true.

You ask the "what good would it do" question to try to change the subject, avoid FINALLY ANSWERING THE LONG, STANDING QUESTION of mine and to excuse your assumption that you "knew" something about me that you didn't.

But, to answer your question, it will do a lot of good for you to have not changed a word because there would always be a record of your mistake. You could mark your growth from that point... That's just for starters.

But let me deal with the bs inherent within... Again, you said:

I know you think their fundamental logic itself is faulty, and also that, presumably, they should therefore be removed altogether

You were wrong. Admit you're wrong and leave it at that. But, no....

You reveal that you don't think the "fundamental logic" in your still unfounded claim is "faulty" which begs the question: why would you change something (other than striking out the "most" thing you already have "withdrawn") when you still want to maintain that you are correct in your "assumption"??

Beyond that, asking PoC for suggestions to something they already told you was objectionable and why it was objectionable, not to mention unfounded, shows that you're not taking full responsibility for your demonstrated errors. Instead of shouldering the burdens of your own mistake and seriously problematic ideas regarding race (as they relate to what PoC think), you want PoC to do your work for you.

You wrote the stuff, so when you feel it needs to be corrected, you correct it. But that's the problem. You don't feel you written anything wrong -- anything that was in error; nothing that was a mistake. Otherwise, you would fix without this what do you (PoC) want it to say attitude like you not only can't figure some simple deductions but like you can't remember a word that has come out of your own mouth, like this:

Something that seems to be emerging here, for me at least, is the idea that if a person outside of a racial group is going to make a claim about what a lot of people in that group think or feel, or is going to identify and then call on that group's supposed, more or less unified opinion, then one damn well better have a lot of evidence gathered and presented while doing so. Preferably hardcore, researched evidence. Otherwise, the outsider is being presumptuous.

Apparently, that didn't "emerge" enough. So that case in point: you shouldn't remove or change a word in your posts because you'll need them to remind you of what you actually said especially sense you are so easily confused about what the actual issue and point of contention is here and in so many of the exchanges we've been in.

You need them words unchanged because you memory or something is faulty.

Now, with your "what good would it do" question answered... JUST LIKE YOUR DUBOIS QUESTION WAS ANSWERED (so don't you ever try that "why should I answer your question when you don't answer mine" game with me again)... with your question answered, how about FINALLY answering mine:

WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR IDEA FROM, Macon?

Where did you get the idea that non-whites "withhold trust" from Whites because they are White (or because of their Whiteness) under the pretense that because they are White that the White person(s) will probably/possibly enact "common forms of white racism." WHERE DID YOU GET THAT IDEA FROM?

You didn't get it from bell hooks. You didn't get it from Nathan McCall...

So where did you get it and since you haven't responded in earnest with respect to your unfounded claim that you drew your idea from Hooks/McCall... cite sources that can be scrutinized to see if you are accurate in your claim.

Given how, to this point, you haven't shown how you've drawn your idea from non-whites/PoC, please be clear about whether you got confused (as you often do) and said you got your idea from PoC when you apparently did just what you did a moment ago: jumped to a conclusion thinking you "knew" something (that I wanted your post removed) when you were instead projecting and/or mixing in your own thoughts and attributing them to PoC.

_________________________________

So, you say my claim that whites should be more self-aware in racial terms does not "contribute [to] anti-racist work."

You're being disingenuous. The claim of yours that I commented on was your claim that "PoC figure Whites are probably/possibly racist or will enact common forms of white racism." That was and remains the unfounded assumption you've made that I have contended with.

And, no, when what you use in your attempt to make Whites "more self-aware in racial terms" is based on unfounded assumptions about PoC, then those faulty MEANS don't justify the ENDS.

Saying something that's untrue/unfounded about non-whites can never "contribute to anti-racism", Macon. If anything, you make it worse when you engage in your own racialized stereotypes.

Plus I already commented on your problematic attempt to draw a moral equivalence between the way Whites act -- e.g. by not seeing non-whites as individuals. You know Whites aren't looked at favorably, in anti-racist circles especially, for not seeing PoC as individuals vs. mere representatives of their group.

So it makes absolutely no sense for you to think you can use that same unflattering character-type, pin it on PoC, and use it to make Whites "self-aware" of whatever. What you're doing is spreading a false racial stereotype via your problematic equivalence drawing. After all, that's the very thing you wanted to bring to White people's attention: that non-whites are "just as" (your phrase) "X, Y , Z" as they are.

Nquest, you can of course run your own blog however you like. I'm going to demonstrate accountability on mine by editing my posts in response to comments that convince me I should do so.

Also, I don't appeal to PoC for any help of that sort that they might want to offer because I want to hear what "they" have to say, as if in some general sense, whereby the words of any one of "them" (you for instance) are to be taken by me as gospel just because they're PoC. I'm open to PoC perspectives because I recognize that there's a good chance that they see things in significantly different ways from how I do from within my white one. That doesn't mean, though, that I won't reserve the right to disagree when I'm not convinced by what this or that individual PoC says about what my posts say.

So my resistance to your critique is not a "pride" thing. It's that I think you're inaccurately paraphrasing what my posts say. I've been very open about various mistakes I've made elsewhere on this blog--if I agreed with your rejection of the fundamental premise/thesis/claim in question here, I would thank you for the suggestions and/or corrections and revise or delete the post(s) accordingly.

why would you change something (other than striking out the "most" thing you already have "withdrawn") when you still want to maintain that you are correct in your "assumption"??

Because if I thought the post's basic claim was wrong, I'd remove the whole thing, or rewrite it so that its basic claim then seems correct. However, despite your arguments to the contrary, I still think the fundamental premise of the posts in question are borne out by what the rest of the posts say. And if parts of the posts that support that fundamental claim/premise/thesis are misstated or flat-out wrong, I'll change or delete those.

I can see now that discussing this any further with you would be fruitless--we simply disagree on the post (or post's) fundamental premise. And my saying that does not mean that I'm somehow trying to avoid the supposed truth of your attempts to disprove that premise.

You know Whites aren't looked at favorably, in anti-racist circles especially, for not seeing PoC as individuals vs. mere representatives of their group.

Yes, I do know that, but that's because when they do that, they're not doing the same thing that I'm saying PoC often do when they encounter new whites. This is apples and oranges, but you're claiming it's apples and apples.

So it makes absolutely no sense for you to think you can use that same unflattering character-type, pin it on PoC, and use it to make Whites "self-aware" of whatever.

Nquest, I get what you're saying, but again, you're inaccurately paraphrasing what I'm saying--and what, for instance, Tim Wise is saying when he describes an example of the same thing:

I think it’s perfectly valid for folks of color to wonder just what the hell am I up to, and what the hell are other white folks up to, doing this work. I get that. I wouldn’t trust me either if I was in that situation. . . . What I do hope, however, is that those of us who are white, when we do the work, and we get challenged, that we don’t, just sort of, give up. I mean, what I see a lot of times is white folks, when they get challenged on this, when they get some of that push-back from people of color, who frankly have no reason to trust what we’re doing or why we’re doing it, it’s like we almost think, “Well how ungrateful!” You know?

I'm not saying I think you're being ungrateful for my anti-racism efforts--ignore that part of Wise's quote. But I do think the rest of it is one more clarifying, supportive example of my basic premise (which isn't at all "unflattering" toward PoC) regarding common non-white receptions of new white people. And I do not think my saying so constitutes an instance of "confirmation bias."

my saying that does not mean that I'm somehow trying to avoid the supposed truth of your attempts to disprove that premise.

You haven't proved the premise to be true. Indeed, you've raised no substantive counterpoints. Mostly, you said you didn't say something you said and now you're claiming you're being misrepresented when the very issue here is you have gone far beyond simply misrepresenting what you claim to have drawn from PoC but you have promoted unfounded and ignorant stereotypes born, by all appearances, from your own ideas, and those problematic ideas of yours most definitely do not contribute to anti-racism. Plain and simple.

Moreover, those MEANS you wanted to bring (back) into the conversation -- thinking you could say you had good intent -- don't justify the ENDS.

This is simply a case where you can't defend what you say, never had support for your initial disputed claim/assertion and you keep compounding it with more and more stuff that don't make sense.

Never did I supply you with a suggestion for what to revise in your post. You want to maintain your position and disagree with me yet you said if I "still" have suggestions for revision (as if I offered any suggestions requesting revision) you were all ears.

That doesn't make sense, Macon.

This is apples and oranges, but you're claiming it's apples and apples.

WHERE?? Where have I claimed that, Macon? I just said:

I haven't quibbled over whatever the hell being "prejudiced in usual sense" is.

You are not telling the truth. I referenced the words that came out of your mouth/writing (from the thread you directed me to):

Just as white folks tend to size up new black individuals in racial terms, waiting for the black person to prove herself better than "other black people" (and I believe that most whites do this, whether they realize it or not), black people often do the same thing to white people.

#3 - "JUST AS WHITE FOLKS" = your words, Macon."JUST AS WHITE FOLKS" > "Black people often do the same thing to white people."

I think it’s perfectly valid for folks of color to wonder just what the hell am I up to, and what the hell are other white folks up to, doing this work. I get that. I wouldn’t trust me either if I was in that situation.

Macon, you have a problem to get the nuances Nquest is talking about, and also Tim Wise.I also don't think it is correct to change your post(s), because you still concentrate on non-whites. The important issue would be "white amazement" and not assumptions about non-white people. Tim Wise also didn't say "they don't trust me because I am white", but that what he is doing as a white. There is a difference Macon. It is not about if you agree with Nquest, it is that you are still wrong. You do not see the different levels of trust. And nobody white would trust any white immediately, just because he is white.

and this is at least the second time where you show in a not so subtle way the door to Nquest and a also not so subtle quest that he should leave you alone. At the same time you call my thoughts "constructive", probably even not realizing or over-looking that I agree with Nquest.And no, you can't blame his style, even if you want to do so.